Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Disputaciones on July 02, 2015, 11:09:41 AM
-
http://youtu.be/yNVgzk3tbl0
I think this video is very interesting. The first thing you may question when someone tells you the earth may be flat is, well what about planes and flights? What about all the "shortcuts" you can take since "of course" the earth is a globe?
Well watch this video. It's pretty short.
-
http://youtu.be/yNVgzk3tbl0
I think this video is very interesting. The first thing you may question when someone tells you the earth may be flat is, well what about planes and flights? What about all the "shortcuts" you can take since "of course" the earth is a globe?
Well watch this video. It's pretty short.
Come on, guy, really?
-
One thing he fails to take into account is that commercial airlines go where the people want to go. I doubt there are enough people who want to go from Sydney to Santiago to justify a non-stop flight very often. They did show 3 scheduled a week, why would he doubt they exist? Same for going from Capetown to Perth! I'm surprised they even have flights to Sydney.
Too many people would be needed to sustain a conspiracy that big for that long. I do believe the earth is a sphere.
-
One thing he fails to take into account is that commercial airlines go where the people want to go. I doubt there are enough people who want to go from Sydney to Santiago to justify a non-stop flight very often. They did show 3 scheduled a week, why would he doubt they exist? Same for going from Capetown to Perth! I'm surprised they even have flights to Sydney.
That is the only real objection I could think of, but we would actually have to look at some stats to verify it. Do you know for a fact there are not enough people from South Africa wanting to go to buenos aires?
But it's interesting anyways how the actual flight corresponds to what it would actually be if the earth were flat.
Too many people would be needed to sustain a conspiracy that big for that long.
The whole world is seated in wickedness. Evil people are in control of things. If they can fake things like the "h0Ɩ0cαųst", why not something like this?
I do believe the earth is a sphere.
The original Douay of 1582 says the earth is a "compass".
-
http://youtu.be/yNVgzk3tbl0
I think this video is very interesting. The first thing you may question when someone tells you the earth may be flat is, well what about planes and flights? What about all the "shortcuts" you can take since "of course" the earth is a globe?
Well watch this video. It's pretty short.
Come on, guy, really?
Did you watch the video?
-
I don't believe the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a fake. Details can be debated but I do believe the nαzι regime wanted to get rid of as many Jews as possible. They also killed Catholic priests, mentally retarded people and anyone they thought "unfit".
I also believe Americans did land on the moon.
-
I don't believe the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a fake. Details can be debated but I do believe the nαzι regime wanted to get rid of as many Jews as possible. They also killed Catholic priests, mentally retarded people and anyone they thought "unfit".
Not to derail the thread, but there was just one (big H) h0Ɩ0cαųst? Do you also call the killing of priests and mentally retarded and gypsies h0Ɩ0cαųsts? Just wondering out loud?
-
It's laughable how the narrator dismisses any evidence that disproves his point (the direct flights) by saying "I don't think those really exist." Really, I wish he had put his money where his mouth is and bought one of those tickets and followed through.
He betrays an ignorance (perhaps a willful one) of the airline industry. Connecting flights exist because, like a previous poster said, airlines are a business and fly their planes where people want to go. I live in Austin, and if I want to travel almost anywhere internationally, I have to connect through Houston or Dallas. Is that because Austin exists in a hole under the earth, and tunnels have been built to Houston and Dallas that you have to go through first? Or is it because Houston and Dallas operate as hubs where other flights are shuttled through, so that people who are traveling long distances are grouped with other people going to the same destination, allowing the airline industry to book more seats on the same overseas flight?
-
I don't believe the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a fake. Details can be debated but I do believe the nαzι regime wanted to get rid of as many Jews as possible.
Supposedly this just doesn't agree with the facts. Supposedly you will not find a single thing written or said by Hitler to the effect of "I want to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth".
I am referring to the "6 million Jews killed in gas chambers" and by other methods, that's what I mean by the "h0Ɩ0cαųst".
Did you know the Jews themselves have changed this 6 million number several times? Reduced it to barely more than a million?
They also killed Catholic priests, mentally retarded people and anyone they thought "unfit".
Yeah, doesnt that tell you something?
-
How can the Earth be both flat and hollow?
-
I don't believe the h0Ɩ0cαųst was a fake. Details can be debated but I do believe the nαzι regime wanted to get rid of as many Jews as possible.
Supposedly this just doesn't agree with the facts. Supposedly you will not find a single thing written or said by Hitler to the effect of "I want to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth".
I am referring to the "6 million Jews killed in gas chambers" and by other methods, that's what I mean by the "h0Ɩ0cαųst".
Did you know the Jews themselves have changed this 6 million number several times? Reduced it to barely more than a million?
They also killed Catholic priests, mentally retarded people and anyone they thought "unfit".
Yeah, doesnt that tell you something?
It tells me that Hitler was a psycho who wanted to rid "his" country of anyone he deemed "unfit" based on his personal biases. He believed the Jews were responsible for the financial ruin of Germany so they had to "go". Was it 1K or 1M or 10M or 100M? Will we ever know? Does the actual headcount matter? I'm sure it does matter to some people, but not to me on a personal level.
Far more people died in battle or as civilian casualties in WW2 than ever died in cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs, the issue is far larger and more complicated than what went on in Germany.
-
I used to believe all the 'elder brother' manipulated information about Hitler too. But there are good arguments to the contrary
Adolph Hitler - The Greatest Story Never Told (http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/)
-
There are 27 parts. The trailer gives a very very brief but nonetheless intriguing overview.
"You don't know 1/10th of it."
-
Supposedly you will not find a single thing written or said by Hitler to the effect of "I want to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth".
David Irving famously pointed out that there's only one single place where Hitler can be docuмented as speaking of violence against Jews, and it was when he issued an order to put a STOP to Kristallnacht.
-
Supposedly you will not find a single thing written or said by Hitler to the effect of "I want to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth".
David Irving famously pointed out that there's only one single place where Hitler can be docuмented as speaking of violence against Jews, and it was when he issued an order to put a STOP to Kristallnacht.
I watched a video the other day and even secular people, who are non-Catholic and go along with the program and evolution etc., admitted that Hitler never said or wrote a thing and the reason they give is that he wanted to "stay clean".
-
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Why is it that ships don't merely "fade" into the horizon, but actually drop beneath it?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/dV0h68YU0iQ[/youtube]
Also, have you ever looked through binoculars at tall buildings across a wide span of water? Why are only the upper parts of the buildings visible? Why not the streets and bottoms of the buildings?
Also, if anecdotal evidence counts for anything, I've observed the curvature of the earth with my own two eyes during travel on an airplane.
-
Also, I'm interested in hearing an explanation for fata morgana mirages according to a flat earth model.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/maLRhoceeuc[/youtube]
-
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Why is it that ships don't merely "fade" into the horizon, but actually drop beneath it?
Law of perspective, vanishing point.
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/3963587/6/stock-photo-3963587-the-passage.jpg)
Also, if anecdotal evidence counts for anything, I've observed the curvature of the earth with my own two eyes during travel on an airplane.
Are you sure you weren't looking through a curved window? There's images of taken from much higher up than planes go where the horizon looks flat. You have to be careful not to get fooled by fisheye lenses too, that always create curves even on flat surfaces.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Why is it that ships don't merely "fade" into the horizon, but actually drop beneath it?
Law of perspective, vanishing point.
I was trained in commercial illustration. I know what a vanishing point is. It is the point at which all "lines" in perspective on a flat plane converge into a point of vanishment.
Ships receding in the distance, as seen in the video, do not merely shrink until they vanish, they dip below the horizon, which has nothing at all to do with "vanishing points."
-
The funniest thing is that there aren't any images of earth from space other than those taken decades ago during the Apollo mission which many deem to have been faked. You think with the thousands of satellites supposedly being up there we would have countless images of earth from space, but go on Google images and apart from the famous Apollo photos, you will find paintings, cartoons, and what NASA admits to being "composite" computer generated images, not photographs.
-
Are you sure you weren't looking through a curved window? There's images of taken from much higher up than planes go where the horizon looks flat. You have to be careful not to get fooled by fisheye lenses too, that always create curves even on flat surfaces.
If it was a distortion caused by the window, then it was a very selectively distorting window. The horizon did not look curved at ground level, or at lower altitudes. It did when we were travelling at a very high altitude.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Why is it that ships don't merely "fade" into the horizon, but actually drop beneath it?
Law of perspective, vanishing point.
I was trained in commercial illustration. I know what a vanishing point is. It is the point at which all "lines" in perspective on a flat plane converge into a point of vanishment.
Ships receding in the distance, as seen in the video, do not merely shrink until they vanish, they dip below the horizon, which has nothing at all to do with "vanishing points."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
http://youtu.be/fGHBcol0IPI
-
The funniest thing is that there aren't any images of earth from space other than those taken decades ago during the Apollo mission which many deem to have been faked. You think with the thousands of satellites supposedly being up there we would have countless images of earth from space, but go on Google images and apart from the famous Apollo photos, you will find paintings, cartoons, and what NASA admits to being "composite" computer generated images, not photographs.
Do you mean the entire earth captured in a single photograph? I would imagine satellites are not sufficiently far from the planet to capture such an image.
Atheists often argue that the absence of any physical remains of the walls of Jericho "proves" that there never was a wall, that there never was a Jericho, and by extension, that Sacred Scriptures contain fictional accounts. The fallacy they commit here, of course, is to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Let's not hold them to a standard to which we would not hold ourselves.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Why is it that ships don't merely "fade" into the horizon, but actually drop beneath it?
Law of perspective, vanishing point.
I was trained in commercial illustration. I know what a vanishing point is. It is the point at which all "lines" in perspective on a flat plane converge into a point of vanishment.
Ships receding in the distance, as seen in the video, do not merely shrink until they vanish, they dip below the horizon, which has nothing at all to do with "vanishing points."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
http://youtu.be/fGHBcol0IPI
Anything to explain a fata morgana? Preferably an article, and not a meme-filled video for 14 year olds?
-
Are you sure you weren't looking through a curved window? There's images of taken from much higher up than planes go where the horizon looks flat. You have to be careful not to get fooled by fisheye lenses too, that always create curves even on flat surfaces.
If it was a distortion caused by the window, then it was a very selectively distorting window. The horizon did not look curved at ground level, or at lower altitudes. It did when we were travelling at a very high altitude.
Fisheye lenses.
I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.
In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.
-
Are you sure you weren't looking through a curved window? There's images of taken from much higher up than planes go where the horizon looks flat. You have to be careful not to get fooled by fisheye lenses too, that always create curves even on flat surfaces.
If it was a distortion caused by the window, then it was a very selectively distorting window. The horizon did not look curved at ground level, or at lower altitudes. It did when we were travelling at a very high altitude.
http://youtu.be/GdW3Y6rxEN8
Sorry, I don't have anything for the mirage you are talking about. I think people say that it has something to do with the refraction of light.
-
What about all the videos from the space station? The portion of earth that can be seen looks curved to me.
-
Sorry, I don't have anything for the mirage you are talking about. I think people say that it has something to do with the refraction of light.
It does indeed. In environments of extreme cold or extreme heat (like the desert seen in the video I posted), light rays can become refracted at a degree greater than the curvature of the earth, allowing an observer to see an image of a very distant object which, due to the curvature of the earth, would otherwise not be visible (like the bus seen in the video).
-
What about all the videos from the space station? The portion of earth that can be seen looks curved to me.
Watch this video:
Astronauts Gone Wild (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbpWaDL4Zc)
-
I can't believe I am reading this on a forum that is supposed to have intelligent people on it. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat then you should be locked up in a rubber room with a strait jacket.
-
Yeah...the Earth is flat :facepalm:
(http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sandy_goe_2012302_1745_lrg.jpg)
-
Yeah...the Earth is flat :facepalm:
(http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sandy_goe_2012302_1745_lrg.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8u0p2w_Lvo
-
Youtube has certainly proven to be boon to the current Flat Earth Renaissance.
Nothing out there on fata morganas? It seems like a base I'd want covered if I were a flat earther.
-
Fisheye lenses.
I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.
So they installed a fish-eying device on the windows to cause the distortion only when we were at very high altitudes?
In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.
Was Bishop Challoner censured for that change? Were any notable objections raised by the Holy Office in his day or later?
-
In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.
Was Bishop Challoner censured for that change? Were any notable objections raised by the Holy Office in his day or later?
Why would he? The Church as a whole made an "unofficial" u-turn on the Geocentrism issue, so this change from "compass" to "globe" seems to me like an "updating" of the Bible from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism.
-
In an old thread you quoted Isaias to McFiggly, where the Challoner versions reads "globe" of the earth, but he pointed out that the original 16th century Douay reads "compass" of the earth, which would agree with flat earth, but you said nothing of this.
Was Bishop Challoner censured for that change? Were any notable objections raised by the Holy Office in his day or later?
Why would he? The Church as a whole made an "unofficial" u-turn on the Geocentrism issue, so this change from "compass" to "globe" seems to me like an "updating" of the Bible from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism.
So you've got a Michael Hoffman-like problem where you believe the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II. Have fun with that.
And if you're blaming a post-Galileo laxness on the matter, why wasn't Gauthier de Metz censured for the publication of L'image du Monde, in which he explicitly describes (and illustrates) the world as a sphere back in 1245?
-
I can't believe I am reading this on a forum that is supposed to have intelligent people on it. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat then you should be locked up in a rubber room with a strait jacket.
Says someone who was duped big time into giving large amounts of money to a woman over a long period of time when said woman was an obvious opportunist.
Flat earth seems more compelling than the things they were duping you with.
-
So you've got a Michael Hoffman-like problem where you believe the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II. Have fun with that.
Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.
I'd love to know the truth on this matter. What is your take on it?
But don't you believe the Church has taught heresy since V2? Isn't that your stance?
And if you're blaming a post-Galileo laxness on the matter, why wasn't Gauthier de Metz censured for the publication of L'image du Monde, in which he explicitly describes (and illustrates) the world as a sphere back in 1245?
I don't know the specifics on this. I'll look into it.
-
Yeah...the Earth is flat :facepalm:
(http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sandy_goe_2012302_1745_lrg.jpg)
Can't you even realise this "picture" you posted here is not a real picture at all but a composite?
-
Yeah...the Earth is flat :facepalm:
(http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sandy_goe_2012302_1745_lrg.jpg)
Can't you even realise this "picture" you posted here is not a real picture at all but a composite?
The would-be ice layers at the top even look botched up if you look closely at them.
In fact they look like they're at the same height as the clouds or even above them.
Some picture.
-
Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for mischaracterizing your position, particularly through implicit association with so odious a figure as Michael Hoffman. A polemical spirit got the better of me, and I went too far.
For the record, I am a geocentrist.
But don't you believe the Church has taught heresy since V2? Isn't that your stance?
Not at all; nor do I believe "the Church" taught Arianism during that dreadful period most like our own, when 90% of the world's bishops had succuмbed to that heresy.
I don't know the specifics on this. I'll look into it.
By all means do.
I might also point out the following here:
St. Bede, Doctor of the Church, also explicitly proclaimed the spherical nature of the earth in De Temporum Ratione, interpreting Isaias in much the same way as Bishop Challoner's Douay translation presents it (and more than 1000 years before Bishop Challoner did so):
"...The roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe."
"We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe... For truly it is an orb placed in the center of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its center with perfect roundness on all sides."
Also, Pope Sylvester II introduced the armillary sphere to Western Europe in the late 10th Century, presupposing a belief in a spherical earth.
Furthermore, on p. 339 of his book, God & Reason in the Middle Ages (2001, Cambridge University Press), Edward Grant points out (emphases mine):
All medieval students who attended a university knew this (i.e. the sphericity of the earth, as expounded by Aristotle). In fact, any educated person in the Middle Ages knew the earth was spherical, or of a round shape. Medieval commentators on Aristotle's On the Heavens, or in their commentaries on a popular thirteenth-century work titled Treatise on the Sphere by John of Sacrobosco, usually included a question in which they inquired, "whether the whole earth is spherical." Scholastics answered this question unanimously: The earth is spherical, or round. No university-trained author ever thought it was flat.
-
Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for mischaracterizing your position, particularly through implicit association with so odious a figure as Michael Hoffman. A polemical spirit got the better of me, and I went too far.
For the record, I am a geocentrist.
That's all right. I wasn't offended.
So you believe the earth doesn't move at all nor spin but is immovable or only that the earth is at the centre of the universe?
And what is your position on the fact that Heliocentrism was condemned but then it was allowed? Some believe the condemnation was infallible and irrevocable, others don't.
By all means do.
I might also point out the following here:
St. Bede, Doctor of the Church, also explicitly proclaimed the spherical nature of the earth in De Temporum Ratione, interpreting Isaias in much the same way as Bishop Challoner's Douay translation presents it (and more than 1000 years before Bishop Challoner did so):
"...The roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe."
"We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe... For truly it is an orb placed in the center of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its center with perfect roundness on all sides."
Also, Pope Sylvester II introduced the armillary sphere to Western Europe in the late 10th Century, presupposing a belief in a spherical earth.
Furthermore, on p. 339 of his book, God & Reason in the Middle Ages (2001, Cambridge University Press), Edward Grant points out (emphases mine):
All medieval students who attended a university knew this (i.e. the sphericity of the earth, as expounded by Aristotle). In fact, any educated person in the Middle Ages knew the earth was spherical, or of a round shape. Medieval commentators on Aristotle's On the Heavens, or in their commentaries on a popular thirteenth-century work titled Treatise on the Sphere by John of Sacrobosco, usually included a question in which they inquired, "whether the whole earth is spherical." Scholastics answered this question unanimously: The earth is spherical, or round. No university-trained author ever thought it was flat.
Well yes, i don't know if anyone in the history of the Church ever believed or taught that the earth was flat.
I should clarify i don't totally believe it is flat. I just saw a lot of videos about it and some things look very interesting.
If it really were flat i believe this would be even better proof for God's existence, because what we have been constantly bombarded with is the idea that we're just an insignificant speck nowhere special and that there are billions of other galaxies and planets out there, so naturally people say "There must be life out there, there must be other civilisations" etc. etc.
I don't know if this may be totally anti-Catholic but some believe that the Garden of Eden was outside the "dome", outside earth, so Adam and Eve were expelled from it. They believe the angel guarding it is in the "edges" of the earth, which they believe is the Antarctic.
But if the Garden was here in this same earth, what happened to it and where is it? Did it just degrade or something? What happened to the angel guarding it?
This all sounds kooky i know, but I'm just throwing it out there, not saying i really believe in it.
-
So you believe the earth doesn't move at all nor spin but is immovable or only that the earth is at the centre of the universe?
I believe the earth is at rest in the center of the Universe.
I became convinced of geocentrism after reading the works of Prof. Wolfgang Smith 8 or 9 years ago. I became all the more compelled by the fact that even "mainstream" atheistic / materialistic physicists do not have any particular opposition to Geocentric Cosmology per se. I began to wonder, "if even the Church's enemies are not insisting upon this, why are so many within the Church going out of their way to impress our enemies by subscribing to heliocentrism?"
Flat earth-ism is another matter entirely. I think it is largely an invention of 19th Century Protestants attempting to smear the Catholic thinkers of the Middle Ages by attributing to them an untenable doctrine which, as all evidence demonstrates, they themselves did not hold.
So the inverse of the above rationale exists, in my opinion: If the Church Herself does not insist upon a flat-earth model (indeed, She has ever leaned much more clearly in favor of a Spherical Earth, as evidenced above), then why should I (or anyone else) insist upon it? Especially when it is in such violation of common sense (i.e. fata morganas, etc.).
And what is your position on the fact that Heliocentrism was condemned but then it was allowed? Some believe the condemnation was infallible and irrevocable, others don't.
I must confess an ignorance on the specifics of the disciplinary side of the issue, such that I do not feel confident in giving my opinion on the matter. I'll be able to respond once I've looked more thoroughly into it.
-
And what is your position on the fact that Heliocentrism was condemned but then it was allowed? Some believe the condemnation was infallible and irrevocable, others don't.
I must confess an ignorance on the specifics of the disciplinary side of the issue, such that I do not feel confident in giving my opinion on the matter. I'll be able to respond once I've looked more thoroughly into it.
You've never had a Novus Ordite or an anti-Catholic tell you that "the Church was wrong on the Galileo affair so it isn't infallible and can make mistakes"?
-
I can't believe I am reading this on a forum that is supposed to have intelligent people on it. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat then you should be locked up in a rubber room with a strait jacket.
There's a new docuмentary out on how the Jews faked rubber rooms. Rubber rooms don't actually exist. And it has been proved by a YouTube video that "straitjackets" are actually not strait. They are curved.
-
I can't believe I am reading this on a forum that is supposed to have intelligent people on it. If anyone really believes the Earth is flat then you should be locked up in a rubber room with a strait jacket.
A thread on the belief in a flat earth (or not) is not nonsense, it is very worthwhile discussing the subject for the following reason. Today flatearthism comes out regularly as an attack on those who accept the geocentrism of the Bible. It happens every time.
Old flat-earthers had good reason to believe in a flat earth. Thanks to the preternatural effect of gravity that keeps the sky above and the earth below us on this globe of ours, there were those who reasoned the earth could not be a globe like the sun and moon because one would find oneself sideways or upside down relative to where on the globe one lived.
In fact it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian merchant who last seriously propagated that the earth is flat.
‘He was scornful of Ptolemy and others who held that the world was spherical. Cosmas aimed to prove that pre-Christian geographers had been wrong in asserting that the earth was spherical and that it was in fact modelled on the tabernacle, the house of worship described to Moses by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat has been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC. His view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era’ --- Wikipedia.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vrasitlav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady in the hands of God.
-
So you've got a Michael Hoffman-like problem where you believe the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II. Have fun with that.
Is it, or is it not, a fact, that Heliocentrism was condemned in the 17th century, but then was suddenly allowed to be believed in, taught etc. the next century? You may call that "believing the Church as a whole was complicit in promoting heresy long before Vatican II", but i don't think that's the case, which is why i look for explanations, but i haven't found any convincing ones so far.
.
It is a fact that belief in a fixed sun and moving earth in a heliocentric scenario was defined and declared formal heresy by Pope Paul V in 1616 and confirmed as so by Pope Urban VIII in 1633. Yes, in 1616 God allowed a pope to 'dogmatise' geocentrism so as to protect the Bible from attack, one that Urban VIII said 'could put the Catholic Faith in danger.'
It was also confirmed as an 'irreversible' decree in 1820.
So what happened. Well as we know there was a clash between faith and reason from 1741 and reason won out. Pope Benedict XIV was convinced by members of the Holy Office that heliocentrism was now accepted as true by astronomers and philosophers. Needless to say there was a great loss of faith in the Fathers, in Trent and in papal infallibility to consider. But faced with the illusion that science had proven THE CHURCH wrong Benedict XVI had no CHOICE. There was nothing he could do but drop the prohibition against 'all books teaching the Copernican system' while leaving the five named books on the Index, a sort of half-way-house, having ones cake while eating some of it.
The very same scenario applied again in 1820, even though there were members of the Holy Office who remained biblical geocentrists and fought to keep the ban on the five remaining books on the Index. They lost out to the greatest bunch of chancers ever to occupy the Holy Office and Pope Pius VII believed them, not those faithful to the Church's 1616 decree.
We note however, apart from a couple of imprimaturs, no pope abrogated the 1616 decree or officially offered an alternative. Indeed the final pope Gregory XVI changed the Index with 'No comment.' thus Christ kept His promise, the Holy Ghost protected THE CHURCH FROM ERROR. All error belongs to individuals unofficially. Yes, the damage was done, but not by popes acting in their magisterium. That belonged to the 1616 decree alone.
So, given there were churchmen who knew the truth, that nobody proves the Catholic Church wrong in its dogmas and fought to keep the 1616 decree active in public, those who did accept heliocentrism were heretics, no doubt. But as we know there are different kinds of heretics. Those, and in charity we will include the post 1741 popes who really believed science had proven the dogma wrong and heliocentrism true, were not defying the faith but adhering to what they had been told, they would be classed as material heretics, heretics by way of ignorance and not rebelling against the 1616 decree. Material heretics are due little or no punishment.
Meanwhile the heresy spread like a virus and caused the very damage to the Catholic Faith as Pope Urban VIII predicted, destroying Genesis and traditional scholasticism and replacing it with 'neo-scholasticism', modernism, with scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics according to modern science and ideas.
-
I am curious, for those who advocate a flat earth, where do you believe the edges of the earth are? In other words, where would you fall off? I know many merchant sailors who have traveled across both the Atlantic and Pacific, and there certainly are no edges in either.
-
I am curious, for those who advocate a flat earth, where do you believe the edges of the earth are? In other words, where would you fall off? I know many merchant sailors who have traveled across both the Atlantic and Pacific, and there certainly are no edges in either.
They believe the Antarctic surrounds the entire earth, like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png)
If you notice this flat earth map is the same as the UN flag, here:
(http://www.youtodesign.com/uploads/allimg/1311/1790.jpg)
Interesting that they have a flat earth for their flag isn't it?
If you notice Antarctica doesn't appear in the UN flag, so flat earthers say the branches on the sides represent Antarctica.
They believe Antarctica surrounds the whole earth with very high ice walls.
-
(http://wallpaperswa.com/thumbnails/detail/20120719/outer%20space%20earth%20space%20shuttle%20nasa%201280x1024%20wallpaper_wallpaperswa.com_33.jpg)
-
Fisheye lenses.
I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.
So they installed a fish-eying device on the windows to cause the distortion only when we were at very high altitudes?
I have seen videos where a camera is at 90,000ft and the horizon or earth is both flat and curved in a matter of seconds, without changing altitudes.
It looks flat and seconds later it looks curved and so forth, but I don't know the reasons behind it.
-
Fisheye lenses.
I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.
So they installed a fish-eying device on the windows to cause the distortion only when we were at very high altitudes?
I have seen videos where a camera is at 90,000ft and the horizon or earth is both flat and curved in a matter of seconds, without changing altitudes.
It looks flat and seconds later it looks curved and so forth, but I don't know the reasons behind it.
You can see this in the videos where they send helium balloons with cameras; at its highest point, if the camera is looking "straight ahead" it looks flat, but if it points down towards the earth then it looks curved.
-
Fisheye lenses.
I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.
So they installed a fish-eying device on the windows to cause the distortion only when we were at very high altitudes?
I have seen videos where a camera is at 90,000ft and the horizon or earth is both flat and curved in a matter of seconds, without changing altitudes.
It looks flat and seconds later it looks curved and so forth, but I don't know the reasons behind it.
You can see this in the videos where they send helium balloons with cameras; at its highest point, if the camera is looking "straight ahead" it looks flat, but if it points down towards the earth then it looks curved.
Perhaps the window distorted my view of the horizon. I'm willing to allow for that possibility.
But more important than my own anecdotal evidence is the overwhelming Traditional Catholic support - from popes, saints, doctors, theologians - for a spherical earth over a flat one, and the fact that scientific data does not dispute this traditional Catholic view of the world, but supports it. A negative doubt is to be despised. What is there even approaching a positive doubt that anyone can actually offer with respect to belief in a spherical earth by Catholics?
And, based on some cursory googling, the flat earthers seem to not have an explanation for fata morgana mirages. I'd say that alone is fatal to their cause, as the sphericity of the earth is crucial to the mechanics of the phenomenon.
Catholics should fight the good fight for Geocentrism and put this flat earth nonsense out onto the ash heap where it belongs. It's a 19th Century Protestant strawman invented to slander Catholics. Let's not do their work for them.
-
Fisheye lenses.
I have seen a video about a plane flying around without fisheye lenses and the horizon looks totally flat.
So they installed a fish-eying device on the windows to cause the distortion only when we were at very high altitudes?
I have seen videos where a camera is at 90,000ft and the horizon or earth is both flat and curved in a matter of seconds, without changing altitudes.
It looks flat and seconds later it looks curved and so forth, but I don't know the reasons behind it.
You can see this in the videos where they send helium balloons with cameras; at its highest point, if the camera is looking "straight ahead" it looks flat, but if it points down towards the earth then it looks curved.
Perhaps the window distorted my view of the horizon. I'm willing to allow for that possibility.
But more important than my own anecdotal evidence is the overwhelming Traditional Catholic support - from popes, saints, doctors, theologians - for a spherical earth over a flat one, and the fact that scientific data does not dispute this traditional Catholic view of the world, but supports it. A negative doubt is to be despised. What is there even approaching a positive doubt that anyone can actually offer with respect to belief in a spherical earth by Catholics?
And, based on some cursory googling, the flat earthers seem to not have an explanation for fata morgana mirages. I'd say that alone is fatal to their cause, as the sphericity of the earth is crucial to the mechanics of the phenomenon.
Catholics should fight the good fight for Geocentrism and put this flat earth nonsense out onto the ash heap where it belongs. It's a 19th Century Protestant strawman invented to slander Catholics. Let's not do their work for them.
Yeah I know, I was just answering to that specific bit about it looking curved at high altitudes.
-
Scientifically speaking the flat earth is the only possible alternative. Because otherwise you need to INVENT a magical force like gravity, this is beyond debate.
Various Saints supported the flat earth. Some regarded as heresy. That is a fact.
Now, the only other possible solution is that we live in a sort of illusion caused by electromagnetism, but that would bend everything (as it's the shape of magnetic fields, toroidal more specifically) . In that case it would be better to keep using the flat earth model for all practical purposes.
And for those saying that we can't trust our eyes, use your touch to prove to yourself that what it appears flat it's flat. lol
This is neo-platonic bs since the inception. Aristotle >>> Plato.
If I'm not confused the Zohar (Jєωιѕн book) says something about "gravity" and ball earth too. So accusing of protestant something could be use both ways.
Electromagnetism is a suppressed subject so I wouldn't venture asserting a proposition.
About being stationary, or it's immovable or the Bible is wrong, and I don't think so, obviously.
The problem with flat earth it's the various shills in this topic. But it's impossible to beat the super fast spinning ball and magic, trickery, diversion explanations.
Chesterton knew something in this regard too, he left hints. And there is no one I trust more than him in these strange days we live in.
The burden of proof is on the spinning Ball theory, because all their explanations are bogus and they never proved gravity (obviously because it doesn't exist, anyone with a brain can see this). Mine is the only reasonable one for a spherical earth (electromagnetism).
PS. I'm a mechanical engineer.
-
Various Saints supported the flat earth.
Which ones and sources please.
-
Okay...
The heretics did the job for me:
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Early_Christian_Church
Notice that when for example Saint Augustine and others regard the idea of antipode being ridiculous you have to conclude that he believed in a flat Earth or a spherical Earth but in a completely different way than modern belief, that means regarded gravity as ridiculous idea (it is). Read St Augustine below for a understanding of the spherical earth idea that some had.
St. Augustine
“As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.
St Boniface
"As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered—if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church."
Saint Basil (implying that he saw contradictions to the presented Ball earth of the Greeks that is ours now)
“Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?”
St. John Chrysostom (cited by Kosmas)
“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.”
Anyways if you people are claiming to be scientific show me the proofs.
As I said the only possible way is electromagnetism.
The moment physics and mathematics are detached from engineering and geometry this is the only possible result.
-
I looked into the only things that made me think there may have been some truth in the OP video and now I see it's all nonsense, the video that is.
So I take back posting this silliness. Sorry all.
-
Which video ?
-
Flat Earth doesn't have a hat hook to hang it's hat on.
Geocentrism is where it's at.
Concerning what you see with commercial flights,
that's only so they can pick up/drop off passengers.
-
For those who believe in gravity just use this formula for a helium balloon and the earth and tell me the results:
Fa=Fb = g*(ma*mb)/r
g=9,8 m/s²
ma= mass of the earth (kg)
mb= mass of the helium ballon (kg)
r= distance between the two (m)
ps m = meters
So that means that the helium balloon is "attracted" to the ball earth as the ball Earth is "attracted" to the helium balloon.
Okay this is Newtonian physics(magic).
So the Helium balloon and the earth has the same Force of attraction. As can shown above. Now tell me, do you believe that a helium balloon can attract the earth upwards ?
Do you believe in that ?
If you do not then you have to add the momentum to explain why the planets stay in their orbits, and then you have to invent the vacuum of space to explain why it never stops and here we go forever (and tons of other things ad infinitum because is a lie). Take your sides.
Then you are ready to accept that nothing exists and causes something. And in the invisible hand of the markets and here we are.
It is a total mess because of lack of philosophy.
Usury the same thing. That is what is all about in fact, neo-platonism at its best.
But don't worry the enlightened ones have a solution(tons of them) for you. The plagiarist JEW Albert, everything is relative voilà.
-
Which video ?
I said OP video, as in video of the original or first post.
-
Anyways, I wouldn't say with 100% certainty that is flat just because of electromagnetism.
But for all practical purposes it is flat.
I also enter in this field by accident, because I was wondering why cellphones with GPS needed connection to the cell towers. When I was in a farm my GPS didn't work, so I started to research about it.
Now, I think the youtube channels are there to discredit the theory. As you can research in google, setting the dates for early 90s, and you can find some articles on the subject.
The main proponents are masons/shills 100% sure.
But we should keep a eye on this because it would have various repercussions for our Faith.
Now if a mistake was made by the Church in the past, that would be completely understandable.
The heliocentric model is not compatible with Christianity though and that should be absolutely clear. And just take a look at the Sistine chapel to see that something is really wrong with the hierarchy, and that didn't started with VII, that needs to be clear for all Catholics, if we are to restore our Beloved Church.
-
null
-
Anyways, I wouldn't say with 100% certainty that is flat just because of electromagnetism.
But for all practical purposes it is flat.
I also enter in this field by accident, because I was wondering why cellphones with GPS needed connection to the cell towers. When I was in a farm my GPS didn't work, so I started to research about it.
Now, I think the youtube channels are there to discredit the theory. As you can research in google, setting the dates for early 90s, and you can find some articles on the subject.
The main proponents are masons/shills 100% sure.
But we should keep a eye on this because it would have various repercussions for our Faith.
Now if a mistake was made by the Church in the past, that would be completely understandable.
The heliocentric model is not compatible with Christianity though and that should be absolutely clear. And just take a look at the Sistine chapel to see that something is really wrong with the hierarchy, and that didn't started with VII, that needs to be clear for all Catholics, if we are to restore our Beloved Church.
"Shill" is a funny word for a brand-new, single-topic poster to be using.
Regardless, do you have an explanation for how fata morgana mirages work?
And with respect to the saints you cite who could be interpreted as supporting flat-earth theory, what have you to say about the saints and doctors - of no less caliber than Bede and Aquinas - who explicitly expounded a spherical earth? What do you make of the fact that none of the Scholastics from the Middle Ages onward believed in a flat earth? Is Thomism an example of pre-V2 "corruption?" How about Saints Pius V and Pius X? Heroic papal giants, or more "corrupt" hierarchs?
-
Refute.
Prove gravity please. Explain me how a helium balloon goes up against the force which holds all oceans and the antipodes.
And if you think something about me, tell explicitly. Let your yes, be yes and your no, be no.
Otherwise guards your judgment for your pairs.
What is so hard to understand in that explanation of the spherical earth and antipodes in St. Augustine passage ?
I explained that is a completely understandable position (ball earth without antipodes), as it was irrelevant for that time (it's not nowadays) because they didn't know about the Americas or Oceania.
If I'm correct, St. Thomas viewed "gravity" as difference of density too. As Aristotle.That is correct. As I'm telling the antipodes is the core of the question as St. Augustine and the Church Fathers clearly saw.
And I'm talking Scientifically, in science (the lowest form of intellectual thought), you have to prove your assertions.
About illusions I need to check it out before I can tell you something, I don't have time now. I will do it after.
St. Thomas is my guide, don't talk about what you don't know.
-
About illusions I need to check it out before I can tell you something, I don't have time now. I will do it after.
Ok. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
-
A helium-filled balloon is acted upon by two forces, the force of gravity and the force of buoyancy. Because, in the example of a helium-filled balloon, the force of buoyancy exceeds the force of gravity, the balloon goes up instead of down.
-
Scientifically speaking the flat earth is the only possible alternative. Because otherwise you need to INVENT a magical force like gravity, this is beyond debate.
Various Saints supported the flat earth. Some regarded as heresy. That is a fact.
Now, the only other possible solution is that we live in a sort of illusion caused by electromagnetism, but that would bend everything (as it's the shape of magnetic fields, toroidal more specifically) . In that case it would be better to keep using the flat earth model for all practical purposes.
And for those saying that we can't trust our eyes, use your touch to prove to yourself that what it appears flat it's flat. lol
This is neo-platonic bs since the inception. Aristotle >>> Plato.
If I'm not confused the Zohar (Jєωιѕн book) says something about "gravity" and ball earth too. So accusing of protestant something could be use both ways.
Electromagnetism is a suppressed subject so I wouldn't venture asserting a proposition.
About being stationary, or it's immovable or the Bible is wrong, and I don't think so, obviously.
The problem with flat earth it's the various shills in this topic. But it's impossible to beat the super fast spinning ball and magic, trickery, diversion explanations.
Chesterton knew something in this regard too, he left hints. And there is no one I trust more than him in these strange days we live in.
The burden of proof is on the spinning Ball theory, because all their explanations are bogus and they never proved gravity (obviously because it doesn't exist, anyone with a brain can see this). Mine is the only reasonable one for a spherical earth (electromagnetism).
PS. I'm a mechanical engineer.
Very interesting post BRCatholic and that includes your quotes on the Antipodes.
So, you are a mechanical engineer, that is more interesting.
The trouble with your comments BR is that I find it hard to tell when you are being sarcastic or airing your views.
I have long considered what WE CALL GRAVITY and a spherical earth. I have no doubt the earth is a sphere because of the science of GEODESY has established enough to show the earth is a sphere. What shape of a sphere they still do not know for sure.
Now take your quote of St Augustine who spoke of upside down men relative to the other side. If a fly landed on the bottom of a bulb it would find itself upside down. St Augustine simply put forward the problems to consider. To the Fathers there could not be men outside the reach of the Church, so they argued that there were no men on the opposite side of the earth beyond the reach of the gospels. And indeed they were correct about that part of the problem in that EVENTUALLY the word of God did reach 'to the four corners of the earth.' The difference between heliocentrism and the Antipodes was that the Antipodes question was never defined and declared a heresy, unlike heliocentrism.
But back to GRAVITY, that 'magic' that keeps things from falling off global spheres, let along supposedly causes bodies in the universe to move in orbits. There have been many THEORIES as to what causes gravity.
After Newton of course, in trying to cement his heliocentric theory, this GRAVITY was given a CAUSE that supposedly made it impossible for the earth NOT to orbit the sun. The world, both in the Church and State fell for it. At last they all thought they understood GRAVITY. Newton's and Einstein's correction of Newton's theory is the favourite because it suits heliocentrism. Accordingly it is held by man as a FACT and thus you find everywhere people talking about the earth and its smaller MASS having to be subservient to the greater Mass of the sun. Science knows it is all theory and many admit the FACT that man HASN'T a CLUE how what we call gravity works.
Personally BR I go for an electromagnetic universe if not caused by the angels for God. we know the earth has a magnetic field within and around it. A friend of mine has found a direct link with orbits and electromagnetic ovals and is currently researching this link. I believe the electric universe will be the next big breakthrough in science. Alas they will find a way to make it fit the helio fraud as another so-called proof.
-
Oops my bad I sent the wrong g in the other comment. The number is huge nonetheless that is the point.
G = 6,674287 x 10^-11 m³/kg.s²
Anyways. I don't have patience to discuss the nonsensical notion of gravity.
Believe what you want. I don't give a damn, this website is full of hypocrites. I just wanted to say that. Just like any other "Traditional" catholic website, just crying babies, who don't want to look at the Truth.
Geodesy uahuah. Mercator for example a remarkable proponent. He who did the projection where Greenland is the size of Africa, nice one. On a Ball Earth everything is possible.
About the Fata morgana I saw one suspicious boat that I don't believe in it, and the other is due to known principles of optics that are correct. a.k.a Reflection and Refraction, in which medieval men were great researchers of this area.
Morgana is a famous name for a witch so I wouldn't venture in this area. As I said look at the antipodes before we can talk about another thing.
If you want to tell me exactly what you are referring to I could address the matter.
Now that some invoked the popes and saints and whatever. Tell me guys why the Sistine Chapel stand still and worst than that, it's the chosen place for the papal conclave. Since 1492 cough cough
Let me show just one picture that I guess it should be enough, it's full of nudity anyways, special attention to the fruit:(https://socialsciencesalpajes.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/14-5-michelangelo-sistine-chapel-forbidden-fruit.jpg)
I bet there are lot of "Catholics" here saying ohh Michaelangelo, ohh da Vinci, ohh Newton, ohh Einstein...beyond pathetic
I hate the old lizard Michael Hoffman but in this regard he is absolutely correct regarding this forum. Although he is just one of those.
"Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. "
Amen.
-
A helium-filled balloon is acted upon by two forces, the force of gravity and the force of buoyancy. Because, in the example of a helium-filled balloon, the force of buoyancy exceeds the force of gravity, the balloon goes up instead of down.
Buoyancy it's all that is. Dif. of density as I said.
-
Two important considerations to keep in mind:
1. Gravity is a theory with 'problematic aspects', 'theoretical concerns' and 'conflicting observations'. Newton himself had his own reservations.
2. Newton was an occultist:
- ISAAC NEWTON'S Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism
- Isaac Newton: Heretical Scientist
- The Newton You Never Knew: Isaac Newton’s Esotericism Revealed
- NOVA: Newton's Dark Secrets
Centuries-old manuscripts reveal the hidden pursuits of a scientific genius
Aired November 15, 2005 on PBS
- http://koreafreemason.com/tag/issac-newton-freemason/
-
I read that Newton's book "proving" Gravity is 4 times bigger than the Bible. The person who said this said it as a derogatory comment.
-
Believe what you want. I don't give a damn, this website is full of hypocrites. I just wanted to say that. Just like any other "Traditional" catholic website, just crying babies, who don't want to look at the Truth.
Pot, the kettle hath called thee black.
Perhaps. If we.
Spoke in short.
Truncated semi-sentences we.
Might appear sophisticated and technical.
Like you.
And thereby.
Grasp.
Your gnostic "truth."
...or at least dazzle our opponents into submission with the impression we give of being just too caught up in the celestial echelons of gnosis to condescend to speaking intelligibly to mere mortals in full and comprehensible sentences and paragraphs.
You put me in mind of Glaston. You wouldn't happen to be a sock puppet or side project of his, would you?
About the Fata morgana I saw one suspicious boat that I don't believe in it, and the other is due to known principles of optics that are correct. a.k.a Reflection and Refraction, in which medieval men were great researchers of this area.
Go to a very hot or very cold place with open views of the horizon and you'll see them. Indiana residents have reported seeing the skyline of Cleveland (300 miles away) hovering above the horizon on very hot summer days. The mechanics are simple - super heated strata of air causes an extreme refraction of light such that it is bent at a greater degree than the curvature of the earth, making very distant objects visible when the curvature of the earth would ordinarily obscure them.
It's a simple, common phenomenon; its mechanics easily explicable. The fact that you lot have nothing to offer to explain it is far more deadly to your theory than any of you admit.
Morgana is a famous name for a witch so I wouldn't venture in this area.
Gosh, what an awfully convenient instance of Jack Chick-like superstition masquerading as piety and prudence.
Go ahead and run from the scary optical phenomenon that disproves your asinine theory.
Better raid your medicine chest and throw out all your witch hazel too, you know, for consistency's sake.
Now that some invoked the popes and saints and whatever.
Yeah. "Whatever." The great Doctor of the Church St. Bede for one, who could not have been more explicit in his affirmation of a spherical earth.
Are you going to anathematize him, or will merely dismissing him with words like "whatever" suffice?
Tell me guys why the Sistine Chapel stand still and worst than that, it's the chosen place for the papal conclave. Since 1492 cough cough
Those are not sentences, by the way. That's not how the English language works. Even the glorious likes of you has to submit himself to the rules of the language if we're going to hold a discussion.
That's not a tangential point, either. Being able to communicate properly is pretty central to making yourself intelligible to others. If being intelligible to others doesn't interest you, then get off the forum and return to your contemplative study of your own navel.
Let me show just one picture that I guess it should be enough, it's full of nudity anyways, special attention to the fruit:
I bet there are lot of "Catholics" here saying ohh Michaelangelo, ohh da Vinci, ohh Newton, ohh Einstein...beyond pathetic
Strawmen and association fallacies aplenty from the newbie.
Well, most of us here do swoon in admiration for the likes of St. Pius V and St. Pius X, both of whom were elected in that chapel. Is that "beyond pathetic?" Ought we look askance at those superheroic champions of Catholic Orthodoxy just because you say so?
I hate the old lizard Michael Hoffman but in this regard he is absolutely correct regarding this forum.
I doubt you hate him. You sound an awful lot like him, in your castigation of more than a millennium's worth of popes - some of them great saints - simply because they dare to differ with your own pet obsession. Why if your great intellect has arrived at this conclusion, who are they to contradict it?
Get wisdom, because it is better than gold: and purchase prudence, for it is more precious than silver. The path of the just departeth from evils: he that keepeth his soul keepeth his way. Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall. It is better to be humbled with the meek, than to divide spoils with the proud.
Proverbs xvi:xvi-xix
Amen.
-
You are gnostic, Wolfgang Smith was associated with Rene Guenon.
Enough said go research.
-
The gurus of your "teacher' here:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRolg3GtrsCEIZyox5ShBxW998DKhSIBqSiinkjhyz_vschbVQ1)
This is common knowledge, as your picture shows the cross is not enough for you ...
Knight of Columbus, Knight of Malta or DeMolay ? hmm... I digress.
Go trick your pairs, it doesn't work with me.
Go deal with the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.
As I said beyond pathetic.
-
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNxd6a9xfRs)
Give us your explanation as mine is unworthy, as I'm not illuminated uahuah
Michael Hoffman endorses that man went to the moon too, that is enough to distance myself from the lunatic, literally lol. I'm probably the worst advertiser ever then. I guess Wolfgang Smith was involved in NASA too no ? With the re-entry problem uahuah
"Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A. in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.
From the start, however, Smith has evinced a dominant interest in metaphysics and theology. Early in life he acquired a taste for Plato and the Neoplatonists, and sojourned in India to gain acquaintance with the Vedantic tradition. Later he devoted himself to the study of theology, and began his career as a Catholic metaphysical author. Besides contributing numerous articles to scholarly journals, Dr. Smith has authored three books: Cosmos and Transcendence (1984), Teilhardism and the New Religion (1988), and The Quantum Enigma (1995)."
http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
Accuse them of what you do ?
Enough said.
P.S. I don't endorse everything said in the video.
-
Hey BRCatholic, what do you mean about Chesterton leaving clues?
Also, what's your problem with Neoplatonism? (I'm interested in Neoplatonism but have not studied it).
-
You are gnostic, Wolfgang Smith was associated with Rene Guenon.
Enough said go research.
BTNYC even remotely gnostic? Not on your life.
BRCatholic, many good people on this forum are very knowledgeable in the Faith (and other areas of study). You'll come to know them if you are patient and humble, open to the Holy Ghost speaking to you through your brothers, some who have a more curt style of correction. Vice versa, I might add.
Following up on the Proverbs verse that BTNYC quoted, what else does Holy Scripture say, in particular, regarding our brothers in the Faith?
This is just a fraction:
Be at peace with one another.
Forgive one another.
Seek good for one another, and don't repay evil for evil.
Through love, serve one another.
Regard one another as more important than yourselves.
Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another.
Speak truth to one another.
Encourage and build up one another.
Pray for one another.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another.
Galatians 5:14,15
If only trads could get their egos out of the way. I'm convinced the heart of our division is summed up in this part of the verse:
Pride goeth before destruction...
-
A DEFENCE OF PLANETS by G.K Chesterton
Link:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12245/12245-h/12245-h.htm
Platonists, in general, put themselves in the place of God. Neo-Platonists do it for sure auhau
And they are without excuse, because one thing is for Plato, a pagan to do it. Another is a Christian to do it.
But Plato has some worthy things, it's not that I regard him as a moron as I do regarding Neo-Platonism uahauh
That is my problem with it.
I think any new development need to follow the path of St. Thomas.
I see that what people did with it is very wrong, and platonists have a point in it. But it is just like saying Protestants have a point in some things they say about the Catholic hierarchy.
They grasp just the extent that God allows us to be punished by infidelity, NOTHING more.
For example, EENS and the sacraments as miracles (or magic as some people say) these are valid criticism. And I completely agree with it. I just don't credit that to Thomism. As St. Thomas says, the both systems are basically the same with a different perspective.
In my opinion Aristotle's system has everything Plato has, but the opposite is not true. Because Platonism doesn't accept errors, and Aristotelian though does. For instance if you are wrong about something you don't have to throw away everything.
The case of the Tabula Rasa for example. Plato believed in innatism and Aristotle in the Tabula Rasa.
But look at the sodomites nowadays, how does that surge is explained in an innate scenario. On other hand how do you explain some great talents like some people have. In sports it's easy to see that.
As St. Thomas elaborated on it, we are all born to be Saints potentially. Nonetheless some are predestined to be more than that, as scriptures says. Thanks to the distinction between nature and grace, given by Saint Augustine we can put the two together. So then we have a problem solved. Using "both" methods.
I don't regard St. Thomas as a Aristotelian or St Augustine as Platonist (neither him btw).
In my view that is the problem, when in fact what people conjecture as Platonism and Aristotelism is the standard way we think but we do it in a confused manner, Plato and Aristotle have great merits in systematizing it because they were rooted more or less in reality.
That is what I think, sorry if it is confused, I have a problem in writing down in these dialog boxes. Also English is not my native language.
-
The gurus of your "teacher' here:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRolg3GtrsCEIZyox5ShBxW998DKhSIBqSiinkjhyz_vschbVQ1)
This is common knowledge, as your picture shows the cross is not enough for you ...
Knight of Columbus, Knight of Malta or DeMolay ? hmm... I digress.
Go trick your pairs, it doesn't work with me.
Go deal with the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.
As I said beyond pathetic.
One hardly knows how to tackle such gobbledygook.
I'm the "gnostic?" Well what the hell is this "uahuah" you keep intoning? Sounds to me like a gnostic emanation or sphere or aeon or some such gibberish. But if it has some specific meaning, please do enlighten us - that redounds to my point about clear communication.
"Go deal with?" What kind of Catholic talks like that? Sounds like Protestant "personal Lord and Savior" jargon to me. I "Deal with" Our Lord in prayer and the Sacraments. This is yet another way you remind me of Hoffman the Crypto-Protestant.
I can't speak on what Professor Smith did in his youth... The man is 85 years old now; his youth, needless to say, is long, long past - plenty of time for him to have confessed any youthful dalliances with eastern pagan nonsense, if indeed he had such dalliances. I certainly hope no one will publicly hold me accountable for my youthful sins (which are many) when I'm an octogenarian. What I do know is that he wrote the definitive work of orthodox Catholic dismantling of Teilhard de Chardin, one of the most pernicious heretics of the 20th Century (and that's saying something). What have you done for Holy Mother Church lately... other than subtly cast aspersions on at least two sainted popes for the "crime" of having been elected in the Sistine Chapel... and not being flat-earthers, of course?
What's "beyond pathetic" is your Jack Chick-like superficiality and superstition, which has led you (conveniently) to flee from the Fata Morgana phenomenon (due to its having been named for a fictional character from Arthurian legendry.... and you claim to be a Chesterton fan?) instead of addressing this veritable Elephant in the Room for the Flat-Earth lot... and which has led you to attempt to smear me because of my use of a Maltese Cross as my avatar.
Well, if you'd like to know the Cabbalistic, Occult reason for my use of that symbol... here it is....
Wait for it....
It's because I'm of Maltese heritage, genju.
You say that English is not your first language. Well, your nigh-incomprehensible posts certainly serve to attest to that. In any case, this is, as you are aware, an English-language forum. If your grasp of English is so tenuous that you're unable to make yourself understood here, perhaps you'd do well to show a modicuм of due humility and bow out of here before you end up doing more harm to your cause than you've already done.
The Traditional Cosmology taught by Holy Mother Church for most of Her two-millennia-long life has been one based on a spherical earth, at rest, in the center of the universe. That is good enough for me, and God knows it should be good enough for any Catholic worthy of the name.
-
As I said whatever.
About Fata Morgana I asked what you meant specifically other than that is reflection and refraction, as I said common knowledge.
What part didn't you understand ?
I don't believe in fairies sorry for that. Just demons.
Do you believe that man went to the moon ? Please tell me because I'm avoiding talking to lunatics.
Well for my knowledge Jesus will judge everybody so who will you deal with it ?
Or you don't believe in hell like your masters ?
What is protestant about that ? You won't deal with me as this is my last response.
About the Sistine Chapel, well tell me genius, what would you tell for a nudist that tells you to don't watch pornography, to cover your body, to do not read some books because of immodest language, etc ?
As I said go trick your pairs I don't presume your innocence, I'm reading this blog for a while now. I subscribed to end with the pretenders like you.
All what these people do is to ape the Greeks, there is nothing new under the sun.
I don't have a cause, I'm waiting for my death and I hope going to heaven. I'm not a mason lol.
OHH Wolfgang would you tell me if your job about re-entry problem for space flights was a job for the masons deceive the whole world in believing that the world is a Globe and our narrative ?
You seems really upset for my nigh-incomprehensible posts.
PS. Although it's round and we say it's oval, now pear shaped lol
Beyond, beyond pathetic.
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
-
Ah well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but I should have saved my breath.
Thank you for the "Hide" option, Matthew.
-
"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. 38And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it."
:farmer: :boxer: :heretic: :laugh1:
-
BR, what's your main language?
-
Portuguese
-
Ah well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but I should have saved my breath.
Thank you for the "Hide" option, Matthew.
Is hide the same as being on ignore?
-
As I said whatever.
About Fata Morgana I asked what you meant specifically other than that is reflection and refraction, as I said common knowledge.
What part didn't you understand ?
I don't believe in fairies sorry for that. Just demons.
Well, some naive men who witnessed the phenomenon in days of old attributed them to fairies. And, as you rightly say, there are no fairies, though there are demons. However, demons are not the authors of Nature, nor of our faculties with which we perceive nature - that would be Almighty God. And a Fata Morgana, despite its name, is a natural phenomenon.
As to what I mean by it "specifically," I covered that above:
The mechanics are simple - super heated strata of air causes an extreme refraction of light such that it is bent at a greater degree than the curvature of the earth, making very distant objects visible when the curvature of the earth would ordinarily obscure them.
It's a simple, common phenomenon; its mechanics easily explicable. The fact that you lot have nothing to offer to explain it is far more deadly to your theory than any of you admit.
It's a natural phenomenon whose mechanics are explicable only by accepting the curvature of the earth as a given. Flat-earthers seem to have no alternate explanation for it (except perhaps for blaming it on demons). That looks bad for the Flat Earth Theory. Am I being specific enough?
Do you believe that man went to the moon ? Please tell me because I'm avoiding talking to lunatics.
I believe the moon landings were a masonic hoax. I credit my Grandmother (God rest her soul), who never believed in the moon landings, with planting the seed in me for that realization, even when all the rest of the world demanded that I believe in it.
I don't find it impossible that simple earth orbit of satellites and manned vehicles has been achieved. It was for projects like that - not the fictitious moon landings - that Professor Smith's published findings were (for better or worse) applied.
And I like the play on words there about "lunatics." Nice touch. Are you sure English isn't your first language?
Well for my knowledge Jesus will judge everybody so who will you deal with it ?
Or you don't believe in hell like your masters ?
What is protestant about that ?
That's right - Our Lord will Judge me... and you. All of us.
"Who will I deal with it?" I presume you mean "how?" Well, that's between me and Our Lord, isn't it? Only Our Lord has perfect knowledge of my intentions, my interior dispositions and other such subjective knowledge (including whether He or someone else is my Master) about which you - like every other creature - are both wholly ignorant and incompetent to judge.
What's Protestant about it? Well, engaging in rash, subjective, and usurpative judgments is certainly not Catholic. You claim to be a Thomist, no? Can you not make simple distinctions between objective and subjective judgments?
In any case, how I will deal with my impending Judgment is by remaining in a state of Sanctifying Grace, which comes through the Sacraments. Hopefully, that's how you're dealing with yours, because, BRother, there's no hope otherwise.
About the Sistine Chapel, well tell me genius, what would you tell for a nudist that tells you to don't watch pornography, to cover your body, to do not read some books because of immodest language, etc ?
To quote you from earlier in the thread, "if you think something... tell explicitly. Let your yes, be yes and your no, be no." What are you implying in the above about the popes elected in that chapel - including St. Pius V and St. Pius X? That they were hypocrites? Complicit in pornography? What? "Tell explicitly."
As I said go trick your pairs
Yes, you certainly did say that. And I honestly have no idea what it means. I tried googling the phrase and literally the one and only result was this thread, so that wasn't much help.
I don't presume your innocence
Well, at least you're honest about being bad-willed.
I don't have a cause
I subscribed to end with the pretenders like you.
These two quotes strike me as contradictory.
I'm not a mason lol.
No, you're not a mason lol, you're a white knight lol, fighting for his cause lol to end pretenders like me lol.
Oh, but wait, that's right, you "don't have a cause."
Well, as you're so fond of saying: "Whatever."
You seems really upset for my nigh-incomprehensible posts.
No, I'm not "upset," but it's funny how you imply that struggling through nigh-incomprehensible posts is supposed to be an easy or pleasant task. It's not, for the record.
PS. Although it's round and we say it's oval, now pear shaped lol
Oh, is that what you meant by "trick your pairs?" Was it another play on words? Twice in one post? A bit too ambitious, perhaps.
Beyond, beyond pathetic.
Yes, it is "beyond, beyond pathetic" (even bordering on "beyond, beyond, beyond pathetic") that any Catholic would reject the Traditional Catholic cosmological model of a spherical earth in favor of his own pet intellectual obsession.
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
Yep, when liberal use of "lol" and "whatever" just aren't cutting the mustard, one can always rely on emoticons to ensure one's writings come across like those of a fourteen-year-old girl.
Way to go out on a high note.
-
"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. 38And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it."
:farmer: :boxer: :heretic: :laugh1:
Sacred Scripture and emoticons. They go together about as well as fine wine and kool-aid.
-
Read again all your question are answered in the previous posts.
Luna = moon
Yeah, It has a lot of double meaning, I'm not puritan nor marxist. I like to make jokes.
I don't have a cause in defending something like the ball earth that is what I meant, read again.
You never denied being a mason or part of a secret society..why is that ?
pairs = people like you, consult your dictionary next time.
You posses a Liberal mind for understanding the meaning of lol ... Neo-Platonists, why can't you accept reality ? I imagine that you regard St. Francis as a sort of anomaly for your perfect world hmm...
I just answer my Lord and his loyal representatives I won't conform to your man-made world.
I'm not Thomism just because I'm not philosopher. But I use his teachings regarding reality. I believe ideas precede will so I don't regard people as animals, sorry for that.
As I said Christianity is different from both systems, is reality, and I'm a Christian not Aristotelian or Platonist.
For instance St Thomas says that theology is the highest form of though and the others are subordinate to it. I see that as a reality, and not as something that regards just the Catholic faith. For example if there is no hell then it's okay to do whatever I want, mason style, like promoting sodomites, women as equals to men. See in the picture that I sent how Eve is muscular, why is that ?
Ohh but the pope at that time was too naive to see it, right ? How the platonic world is beautiful.
You don't need curved earth for illusions to happen. Get glass of water and put a fork in it. There you have an illusion, but as I said when one sense fails you can use another, in this case touch to check it out to see if there is a curve there. Tell me the results after that.
Now explain for us, how can I see something 40 miles (or more) away and see a flat horizon thousands miles up? How does lighthouses work? And how is it possible for antipodes to exist ?
I can explain, scientifically (by evidence) speaking all those things in a flat earth. Can you do it without invent something magic, like, gravity ? Can you provide evidence ?
I guess not, it has been 400 years of waiting and there is nothing new under the sun :laugh1:. As I said the burden of proof is yours.
I think, using the doctrine of the Fathers, the Medicis are at best material heretics, I believe that because usury is a mortal sin and they practiced for all I know, hurt lots of people and never made restitution. So they don't appear repented.
But it's not my job to declare it so,and using another doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, by their fruit you shall know them, the Sistine chapel talks by itself.
These and other popes I would have to study about it and worst than that it would be to know if the information available is correct, so it's impossible for me to assert that. That's why I trust the Holy Spirit to act in due time, and I don't enter in fruitless conversations.
You said about using "liberal" language, what about using a symbol, very suspicious and common among the heretics by the way, a little odd perhaps?
And talking about heretics what to say about a "teacher" in a liberal university, with a very very odd "flat-earther" by the way, who supposedly regretted of being a hindu, associated with satellites (that cannot take 1 single picture of the Earth) and space-flight and associated with the worst kind of people in the world ?
He just don't know I'm sure just like the Medicis didn't.
And if there is a re-entry it's related to human space travels or weapons, there is no other uses for it duhh, you are living too much inside your Platonic world. Take a breath outside of it sometimes.
Burn heretics, burn!
:heretic:
-
Ah well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but I should have saved my breath.
Thank you for the "Hide" option, Matthew.
Is hide the same as being on ignore?
Yes, it will hide all of that user's posts, as if you have them on ignore. To undo it, just click the green View button that appears in lieu of the red Hide button for that user.
-
Ah well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but I should have saved my breath.
Thank you for the "Hide" option, Matthew.
Is hide the same as being on ignore?
Yes, it will hide all of that user's posts, as if you have them on ignore. To undo it, just click the green View button that appears in lieu of the red Hide button for that user.
I asked because one poster here said he had BRCatholic on hide but on the bottom of any post BR has made it says "Ignored by: 0", so i thought they had to be different because if they're the same, shouldn't it say "Ignored by: 1"?
-
BRC, if you're a convinced flat earther, you don't regard these videos of balloons sent 30km above the earth as any indication that the earth is not flat?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/9CjjbauSvBE[/youtube]
When the camera goes below horizontal at its highest altitudes and is looking down, being able to catch more of the earth, it looks spherical, round.
Also, what do you say about iridiums?
-
BRC, if you're a convinced flat earther, you don't regard these videos of balloons sent 30km above the earth as any indication that the earth is not flat?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/9CjjbauSvBE[/youtube]
When the camera goes below horizontal at its highest altitudes and is looking down, being able to catch more of the earth, it looks spherical, round.
Also, what do you say about iridiums?
nope at 3:36 is concave in these kind of camera, you can read about in their website. Link Below:
http://gopro.com/support/articles/curved-nature-pictures-videos
Iridium's satellite phone ?
I don't believe in satellites that is the reason I found out about the flat earth to begin with.
-
BRC, if you're a convinced flat earther, you don't regard these videos of balloons sent 30km above the earth as any indication that the earth is not flat?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/9CjjbauSvBE[/youtube]
When the camera goes below horizontal at its highest altitudes and is looking down, being able to catch more of the earth, it looks spherical, round.
Also, what do you say about iridiums?
nope at 3:36 is concave in these kind of camera, you can read about in their website. Link Below:
http://gopro.com/support/articles/curved-nature-pictures-videos
Iridium's satellite phone ?
I don't believe in satellites that is the reason I found out about the flat earth to begin with.
An iridium is a satellite. Do you know what an iridium flare is? They are predictable to the second and I have seen many of them myself.
-
nope at 3:36 is concave in these kind of camera, you can read about in their website. Link Below:
http://gopro.com/support/articles/curved-nature-pictures-videos
Fine then, the video I put doesn't say anything in the description and it's in Dutch or something but this video does say they used the Hero camera and filmed it in HD, which lessens the fisheye effect according to your link.
[youtube]https://youtube.com/embed/ZCAnLxRvNNc[/youtube]
-
E continues 2 rev around S .... :cheers:
-
E continues 2 rev around S .... :cheers:
Skeifjeosnwodnrjfndjsjwjsjaosneosjsosjsisjeosis sowodhsosjwoa soaisnsjaoais sisixnfirjfjwdjd sownsidjcjeidjedid disk chronic didjdneosisosis didjdneosisosis is didjdneosisosis is soanfusidjsisis sisjdidjdk.
-
E continues 2 rev around S .... :cheers:
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0c/0c1dd59ee0f873ff3c2ca89250458208460fb8ccc776e8373244f4b0120b38f6.jpg)
-
nope at 3:36 is concave in these kind of camera, you can read about in their website. Link Below:
http://gopro.com/support/articles/curved-nature-pictures-videos
Fine then, the video I put doesn't say anything in the description and it's in Dutch or something but this video does say they used the Hero camera and filmed it in HD, which lessens the fisheye effect according to your link.
[youtube]https://youtube.com/embed/ZCAnLxRvNNc[/youtube]
The previous video cites GOPro in its title :furtive: and this one has the same concave/convex appearance. You can "fix" the video using their software. I don't have this camera so I can't tell you for sure .
"If you want to get rid of the barrel distortion or "fisheye" look of your GoPro videos, you can use GoPro Studio to import the footage and check the "Remove Fisheye" checkbox. This will allow you to export the videos without a barrel distortion or "fisheye" look."
From the link I sent.
-
nope at 3:36 is concave in these kind of camera, you can read about in their website. Link Below:
http://gopro.com/support/articles/curved-nature-pictures-videos
Fine then, the video I put doesn't say anything in the description and it's in Dutch or something but this video does say they used the Hero camera and filmed it in HD, which lessens the fisheye effect according to your link.
[youtube]https://youtube.com/embed/ZCAnLxRvNNc[/youtube]
The previous video cites GOPro in its title :furtive: and this one has the same concave/convex appearance. You can "fix" the video using their software. I don't have this camera so I can't tell you for sure .
"If you want to get rid of the barrel distortion or "fisheye" look of your GoPro videos, you can use GoPro Studio to import the footage and check the "Remove Fisheye" checkbox. This will allow you to export the videos without a barrel distortion or "fisheye" look."
From the link I sent.
This video looks like it had the fisheye effect removed. I saw some videos with the effect on and it's totally noticeable, but not in this one. I put it slow motion to see if the people would look bent or rounded and the cars and other things in the beginning and they don't, they kept looking straight even when they were at the edge of the image.
I think the horizon would never look flat anyways as it does in this video, when the camera is looking straight ahead, if the effect were on.
Anyways, you still haven't addressed what I asked you about iridiums.
-
I don't believe in satellites, I answered already :furtive:
About the video being corrected, that doesn't guarantee 100% elimination, as the title of the link says How to Reduce the Fish-eye Effect. :furtive:
About being predictable that is nothing new, the pagans used th eclipses to propagate their myths, as I said before they are apes of the pagans. They don't even do a good job.
"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ"
"10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid"
If these words were listened we wouldn't be here :furtive:
Let's remember:
Isaac Newton - Heretic, pagan and schismatic
Copernicus - Heretic and secretly pagan
Galileo - Heretic even a proclaimed one
Voltaire - Heretic and mason
Rousseau - Heretic and mason
Adam Smith - Heretic and mason
British Crown and their allies - Schismatics, heretics and pagans
etc, etc
-
I don't believe in satellites, I answered already :furtive:
About the video being corrected, that doesn't guarantee 100% elimination, as the title of the link says How to Reduce the Fish-eye Effect. :furtive:
About being predictable that is nothing new, the pagans used th eclipses to propagate their myths, as I said before they are apes of the pagans. They don't even do a good job.
"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ"
"10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid"
If these words were listened we wouldn't be here :furtive:
Let's remember:
Isaac Newton - Heretic, pagan and schismatic
Copernicus - Heretic and secretly pagan
Galileo - Heretic even a proclaimed one
Voltaire - Heretic and mason
Rousseau - Heretic and mason
Adam Smith - Heretic and mason
British Crown and their allies - Schismatics, heretics and pagans
etc, etc
Why are you playing stupid? I didn't ask you if you BELIEVED in satellites; I asked you to EXPLAIN iridium flares if you say they don't exist.
This is what I'm talking about:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
-
I don't believe in satellites, I answered already :furtive:
About the video being corrected, that doesn't guarantee 100% elimination, as the title of the link says How to Reduce the Fish-eye Effect. :furtive:
About being predictable that is nothing new, the pagans used th eclipses to propagate their myths, as I said before they are apes of the pagans. They don't even do a good job.
"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ"
"10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid"
If these words were listened we wouldn't be here :furtive:
Let's remember:
Isaac Newton - Heretic, pagan and schismatic
Copernicus - Heretic and secretly pagan
Galileo - Heretic even a proclaimed one
Voltaire - Heretic and mason
Rousseau - Heretic and mason
Adam Smith - Heretic and mason
British Crown and their allies - Schismatics, heretics and pagans
etc, etc
Why are you playing stupid? I didn't ask you if you BELIEVED in satellites; I asked you to EXPLAIN iridium flares if you say they don't exist.
This is what I'm talking about:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
They are not satellites...what part don't you understand, they are just comets, falling stars, whatever you call them with predictable time to occur. Some say comets tails too.
They are not satellites because they don't exist that I can guarantee you.
:furtive:
Satellites = Antennas
-
I don't believe in satellites, I answered already :furtive:
About the video being corrected, that doesn't guarantee 100% elimination, as the title of the link says How to Reduce the Fish-eye Effect. :furtive:
About being predictable that is nothing new, the pagans used th eclipses to propagate their myths, as I said before they are apes of the pagans. They don't even do a good job.
"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ"
"10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid"
If these words were listened we wouldn't be here :furtive:
Let's remember:
Isaac Newton - Heretic, pagan and schismatic
Copernicus - Heretic and secretly pagan
Galileo - Heretic even a proclaimed one
Voltaire - Heretic and mason
Rousseau - Heretic and mason
Adam Smith - Heretic and mason
British Crown and their allies - Schismatics, heretics and pagans
etc, etc
Why are you playing stupid? I didn't ask you if you BELIEVED in satellites; I asked you to EXPLAIN iridium flares if you say they don't exist.
This is what I'm talking about:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
They are not satellites...what part don't you understand, they are just comets, falling stars, whatever you call them with predictable time to occur. Some say comets tails too.
They are not satellites because they don't exist that I can guarantee you.
:furtive:
Satellites = Antennas
So comets, falling stars or "whatever" look like dots on the sky ORBITING around?
-
Yeah...Like Halley.
-
Yeah...Like Halley.
It says Halley's visible from earth every 75-76 years.
You can see iridiums all the time.
Have you seen an iridium flare yourself?
Iridiums are NOTHING like a comet at all. This is truly ridiculous.
-
Smaller orbits :furtive:
That is why is predictable to the seconds :furtive:
Never saw. I guess. Just falling stars if the magicians predicted I would never know. I don't listen to then.
-
Smaller orbits :furtive:
That is why is predictable to the seconds :furtive:
You answered before I edited my post.
I had said that iridiums are NOTHING at all like comets.
-
Never saw. I guess. Just falling stars if the magicians predicted I would never know. I don't listen to then.
So you haven't even seen one in your life and yet you're talking as if you know it all.
Well I have, lots of them, and I'm telling you they're nothing like comets.
There's only 1 silly video on YouTube saying that satellites don't exist and in that video they say nothing at all about iridiums. They're not even mentioned and it was done by an amateur nobody.
-
Is it a light in the sky ?
Does it shine ? Does disappear ? It seems like a comet :furtive:
-
Is it a light in the sky ?
Does it shine ? Does disappear ? It seems like a comet :furtive:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/embed/MTGVuPr9Epg[/youtube]
They don't disappear, you see them coming and you can still see them when they stop shining.
The video isn't like you see it in real life of course, but you get the idea.
-
This is what they look like:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Iridium_Satellite.jpg)
Sunlight hitting one of those panels is what causes them to shine momentarily.
-
Yeah, yeah.
Seriously man ?
Do you tell me that you can see a car flashing 781 km away ? :facepalm:
-
Yeah, yeah.
Seriously man ?
Do you tell me that you can see a car flashing 781 km away ? :facepalm:
You indeed saw the "satellites don't exist" video which is propped around other videos.
He says the same thing, "can you see a bus up there?"
Last time I checked neither cars nor buses have such panels. Do they?
-
Whatever man !
Believe in what you want ! I did my job.
-
Whatever man !
Believe in what you want ! I did my job.
Haha and what "job" was that?
The one who runs those satellites is not even NASA by the way, but Motorola.
-
:cheers:
-
:cheers:
The arsonist has oddly shaped feet.
How now brown cow how now brown cow.
The human torch was denied a bank loan.
-
http://youtu.be/yNVgzk3tbl0
I think this video is very interesting. The first thing you may question when someone tells you the earth may be flat is, well what about planes and flights? What about all the "shortcuts" you can take since "of course" the earth is a globe?
Well watch this video. It's pretty short.
Amazingly dumb video
For starters, just a basic understanding of logistics will inform that it's more cost effective for airlines to have few main connecting hubs in order to centralize all the expensive infrastructure to operate. FedEx does the same with his packages... they all go through Memphis even though it don't seem like a logical route. It's cost efficient.
As for the "flat map" it's simply a different projection the the usual mercator we are used to. The one showed has the very inconvenient problem of making the south pole a thin ring that seem to edge the "flat earth".
Antartica of course has been explored and mapped in details and its no where close to be a thin layer...
Sigh.
-
http://youtu.be/yNVgzk3tbl0
I think this video is very interesting. The first thing you may question when someone tells you the earth may be flat is, well what about planes and flights? What about all the "shortcuts" you can take since "of course" the earth is a globe?
Well watch this video. It's pretty short.
Amazingly dumb video
For starters, just a basic understanding of logistics will inform that it's more cost effective for airlines to have few main connecting hubs in order to centralize all the expensive infrastructure to operate. FedEx does the same with his packages... they all go through Memphis even though it don't seem like a logical route. It's cost efficient.
As for the "flat map" it's simply a different projection the the usual mercator we are used to. The one showed has the very inconvenient problem of making the south pole a thin ring that seem to edge the "flat earth".
Antartica of course has been explored and mapped in details and its no where close to be a thin layer...
Sigh.
I don't know if you saw but I took back what I had said.
I don't agree with what you say about Antarctica though. Supposedly it's forbidden to go there unless you will be supervised.
-
My job in alerting you from your stupidity.
-
My job in alerting you from your stupidity.
You ran away from the iridium discussion and now you say I'm stupid.
Ok.
-
I've explained 100 times, celestial objects with predictable time. :furtive:
Every year there is the tears of Saint Lawrence, for example. Are those satellites ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseids
-
I've explained 100 times, celestial objects with predictable time. :furtive:
Every year there is the tears of Saint Lawrence, for example. Are those satellites ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseids
Do you not understand they don't look like any "celestial objects" and that "celestial objects" don't shine every night?
Which celestial objects shine every night and are predictable to the second?
-
E continues 2 rev around S .... :cheers:
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0c/0c1dd59ee0f873ff3c2ca89250458208460fb8ccc776e8373244f4b0120b38f6.jpg)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/h4YzI7W_vtU[/youtube]
Starting at 1:40.
Indeed. :roll-laugh1:
-
Small orbits :facepalm:
-
E continues 2 rev around S .... :cheers:
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0c/0c1dd59ee0f873ff3c2ca89250458208460fb8ccc776e8373244f4b0120b38f6.jpg)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/h4YzI7W_vtU[/youtube]
Starting at 1:40.
Indeed. :roll-laugh1:
I saw 4 minutes of this vulgar nonsense.
-
Burn heretics, burn!
:heretic:
Who was this directed at?
-
I don't agree with what you say about Antarctica though. Supposedly it's forbidden to go there unless you will be supervised.
You don't agree? Antartica doesn't need your approval to exist as a continent and the heroics of the first brave men to have explored Antartica and died to futher human knowledge will not be erased by your willful ignorance.
-
I don't agree with what you say about Antarctica though. Supposedly it's forbidden to go there unless you will be supervised.
You don't agree? Antartica doesn't need your approval to exist as a continent and the heroics of the first brave men to have explored Antartica and died to futher human knowledge will not be erased by your willful ignorance.
I wasn't saying it doesn't exist, genius. I'm saying one can't go on his own to explore the place and that I don't blindly trust governments, or National Geographic, or NASA, or any of these things, like you seem to.
-
Gonna cry ?
"Trads" are laughable stock. No wonder the communists will rule the world. They already got the papacy.
If you were this shrine of purity that you portray, you would never understand the meaning genius. Saint Augustine says something like this about rape ...
I for myself understood that like this: Go away Nasa shill.
Just some...
:facepalm:
"25Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. 26Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.
27Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. 28So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
-
Gonna cry ?
Huh?
But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
-
Gonna cry ?
Huh?
But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
I said nothing, I retained of what was good...The guy did and he is close to the truth than most of you ...
"For the mystery of lawlessness already works; only [there is] he who restrains now until he be gone, 8and then the lawless one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming; 9whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, 10and in all deceit of unrighteousness to them that perish, because they have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11And for this reason God sends to them a working of error, that they should believe what is false, 12that all might be judged who have not believed the truth, but have found pleasure in unrighteousness."
-
Burn heretics, burn!
:heretic:
Who was this directed at?
Back to this question.
-
I wasn't saying it doesn't exist, genius. I'm saying one can't go on his own to explore the place and that I don't blindly trust governments, or National Geographic, or NASA, or any of these things, like you seem to.
You don't get it... your so busy not trusting whomever, you're forgetting to trust your common sense.
Simply put, the "flat map" is perfectly fine... it's just one of the many projections possible. each have their advantage and disadvantage. The "flat map" is disastrous for obvious reasons for Antartica. Point is, no matter which map you take, everything will line up perfectly as expected.
Here play with this, you might learn something.
Move your mouse over it, it'a cool
https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/transition/
-
Burn heretics, burn!
:heretic:
Who was this directed at?
Back to this question.
To all heretics...But in this case was against the "Maltese" guy, because his teacher is for certain a heretic. And he is promoting him time and time again here.
-
I wasn't saying it doesn't exist, genius. I'm saying one can't go on his own to explore the place and that I don't blindly trust governments, or National Geographic, or NASA, or any of these things, like you seem to.
You don't get it... your so busy not trusting whomever, you're forgetting to trust your common sense.
Simply put, the "flat map" is perfectly fine... it's just one of the many projections possible. each have their advantage and disadvantage. The "flat map" is disastrous for obvious reasons for Antartica. Point is, no matter which map you take, everything will line up perfectly as expected.
Here play with this, you might learn something.
Move your mouse over it, it'a cool
https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/transition/
Did you not read that I said you can't go on your own and explore the Antarctic? If you go there they will be supervising you all the time and you only have limited access.
I never implied the Antarctic doesn't exist. All I wanted to say was that I don't necessarily trust what THEY tell us are its dimensions, geography etc.
And it was one of those "brave explorers" like admiral Byrd who said weird things about the Antarctic and left cryptic messages about it.
-
I never implied the Antarctic doesn't exist. All I wanted to say was that I don't necessarily trust what THEY tell us are its dimensions, geography etc.
Yeah I read that this above is the glue that holds your ridiculous illusion together... I understand that just fine.
That don't mean it's true. there are in fact some areas where human activity is not allowed for scientific or environemental reasons (16 in all)
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/20/us/16-areas-restricted-under-antarctic-treaty.html
But the rest, knock yourself out! Nothing is preventing you.
-
I never implied the Antarctic doesn't exist. All I wanted to say was that I don't necessarily trust what THEY tell us are its dimensions, geography etc.
Yeah I read that this above is the glue that holds your ridiculous illusion together... I understand that just fine.
That don't mean it's true. there are in fact some areas where human activity is not allowed for scientific or environemental reasons (16 in all)
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/20/us/16-areas-restricted-under-antarctic-treaty.html
But the rest, knock yourself out! Nothing is preventing you.
I stand corrected then. But I had already told you I'm not a flat earther. The most I did was lean in favor of it, but I was never convinced.
BRC, on the other hand, is a convinced flat earther, he doesn't even believe in satellites, or iridiums, so why don't you go after him too?
-
To all heretics...But in this case was against the "Maltese" guy, because his teacher is for certain a heretic. And he is promoting him time and time again here.
Mur tnejjek, pufta.
-
For those who believe in gravity just use this formula for a helium balloon and the earth and tell me the results:
Fa=Fb = g*(ma*mb)/r
g=9,8 m/s²
ma= mass of the earth (kg)
mb= mass of the helium ballon (kg)
r= distance between the two (m)
ps m = meters
So that means that the helium balloon is "attracted" to the ball earth as the ball Earth is "attracted" to the helium balloon.
Okay this is Newtonian physics(magic).
So the Helium balloon and the earth has the same Force of attraction. As can shown above. Now tell me, do you believe that a helium balloon can attract the earth upwards ?
No one responded to this ?
The helium ballon rises because it's an extralight gas and it seeks to rise on top of the atmosphere the same way oil rises on top of vinegar in a salad dressing. Same holds for helium: it goes up and rests on top of the atmosphere where it rightly belongs.
And yes, that means that an helium ballon on the moon won't float because there is no atmosphere to rise on top of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1UUgrALKQc
So yeah... pretty stupid
-
For those who believe in gravity just use this formula for a helium balloon and the earth and tell me the results:
Fa=Fb = g*(ma*mb)/r
g=9,8 m/s²
ma= mass of the earth (kg)
mb= mass of the helium ballon (kg)
r= distance between the two (m)
ps m = meters
So that means that the helium balloon is "attracted" to the ball earth as the ball Earth is "attracted" to the helium balloon.
Okay this is Newtonian physics(magic).
So the Helium balloon and the earth has the same Force of attraction. As can shown above. Now tell me, do you believe that a helium balloon can attract the earth upwards ?
No one responded to this ?
The helium ballon rises because it's an extralight gas and it seeks to rise on top of the atmosphere the same way oil rises on top of vinegar in a salad dressing. Same holds for helium: it goes up and rests on top of the atmosphere where it rightly belongs.
And yes, that means that an helium ballon on the moon won't float because there is no atmosphere to rise on top of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1UUgrALKQc
So yeah... pretty stupid
I corrected the G though in another post. Anyways this proves that Newtonian physics is false.
-
You corrected the G in another post?
So basicly, you're winging it as you go along it seems.
Nothing in what you wrote disproves anything but rather paint the image of someone talking about stuff he only scarcely understands.
Funny thing is, is that, to your question... Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math. However, the earth does not alter it's course because the pull of the helium ballon is insignificant compared to countless other objects that interact with earth. Your theoretical question is immature. Why would the earth react to one specific balloon?
-
You corrected the G in another post?
So basicly, you're winging it as you go along it seems.
Nothing in what you wrote disproves anything but rather paint the image of someone talking about stuff he only scarcely understands.
Funny thing is, is that, to your question... Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math. However, the earth does not alter it's course because the pull of the helium ballon is insignificant compared to countless other objects that interact with earth. Your theoretical question is immature. Why would the earth react to one specific balloon?
Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math.
:facepalm:
Thank you for proving my point. I'm engineer genius, I know physics, that is why when you see a g you write 9.8, I was trained to the exhaustion.
I was just rushing when writing down, and I didn't put the G otherwise I wouldn't do that mistake, and I corrected afterwards.
If the Earth moves the Bible is wrong genius. :facepalm:
-
You corrected the G in another post?
So basicly, you're winging it as you go along it seems.
Nothing in what you wrote disproves anything but rather paint the image of someone talking about stuff he only scarcely understands.
Funny thing is, is that, to your question... Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math. However, the earth does not alter it's course because the pull of the helium ballon is insignificant compared to countless other objects that interact with earth. Your theoretical question is immature. Why would the earth react to one specific balloon?
Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math.
:facepalm:
Thank you for proving my point. I'm engineer genius, I know physics, that is why when you see a g you write 9.8, I was trained to the exhaustion.
I was just rushing when writing down, and I didn't put the G otherwise I wouldn't do that mistake, and I corrected afterwards.
If the Earth moves the Bible is wrong genius. :facepalm:
The arsonist has oddly shaped feet.
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
-
The Bible is wrong...
:facepalm:
"Trads" laughable stock as I said.
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
(https://chimichangatalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/wpid-auto-the-very-high-guy-201011.jpeg)
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
From the First Vatican Council (1870):
3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
-
The Bible is wrong ...
Holy Scripture is infallible and is to be interpreted literally. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical "On the Study of Holy Scripture" calls to the attention the rule of St. Augustine in this respect: "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires".
In 1909, the Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X gave this response concerning the historical character of the first chapters of Genesis, which are to be understood on a literal sense:
Question: In particular, may one question the literal historical sense when these...chapters....treat of facts that touch on fundamental points of the Christian religion?
Response: "The literal, historical sense may not be questioned".
And from St. Pius X, Lamentabili, Condemned Propositions:
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain. CONDEMNED
-
E being in motion is a matter of science that has little if any effect on The Faith( aka Christian religion). :detective:
-
E being in motion is a matter of science that has little if any effect on The Faith( aka Christian religion). :detective:
Typical Modernist insistence on a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason.
"Little if any effect?" So it might have some small effect on the Faith, Roscoe? What do you suppose that small effect could be?
The Creation Account in Genesis is nothing less than an account of the Creation of the World given by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, Who not only witnessed that event but, being God, is the Author of the Event. You couldn't ask for a more reliable witness - but, according to you, it was beyond His capacity to provide a scientifically accurate account of those events?
Heed the Words of God the Son, and heed them well:
For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
- The Gospel According to St. John v:xlvi-xlvii
-
E being in motion is a matter of science that has little if any effect on The Faith( aka Christian religion). :detective:
Typical Modernist insistence on a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason.
"Little if any effect?" So it might have some small effect on the Faith, Roscoe? What do you suppose that small effect could be?
The Creation Account in Genesis is nothing less than an account of the Creation of the World given by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, Who not only witnessed that event but, being God, is the Author of the Event. You couldn't ask for a more reliable witness - but, according to you, it was beyond His capacity to provide a scientifically accurate account of those events?
Heed the Words of God the Son, and heed them well:
For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
- The Gospel According to St. John v:xlvi-xlvii
Sorry but MO is that it is NOT a 'false dichotomy between Faith & Reason'... :confused1:
MO is also that you are Definitive Sola Scriptura
-
It seems unlikely that the earth would be at the centre of the universe and flat. That would just look silly! All these spheres orbiting a flat disc?! Or are all the other planets supposed to be flat too? That would look interesting.
-
Holy Scripture is infallible and is to be interpreted literally. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical "On the Study of Holy Scripture" calls to the attention the rule of St. Augustine in this respect: "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires".
Whiich means, of course, it doesn't have to be taken literally absolutely all the time.
(Not that I'm agreeing with roscoe. He's obviously in error if he thinks the Bible is wrong.)
-
E being in motion is a matter of science that has little if any effect on The Faith( aka Christian religion). :detective:
Typical Modernist insistence on a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason.
"Little if any effect?" So it might have some small effect on the Faith, Roscoe? What do you suppose that small effect could be?
The Creation Account in Genesis is nothing less than an account of the Creation of the World given by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, Who not only witnessed that event but, being God, is the Author of the Event. You couldn't ask for a more reliable witness - but, according to you, it was beyond His capacity to provide a scientifically accurate account of those events?
Heed the Words of God the Son, and heed them well:
For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
- The Gospel According to St. John v:xlvi-xlvii
Sorry but MO is that it is NOT a 'false dichotomy between Faith & Reason'... :confused1:
MO is also that you are Definitive Sola Scriptura
No, Puffinstuff, I'm not. Because not only does Scripture demand a geocentric cosmology, so does immemorial Catholic Tradition. So, "YO," as usual, is not worth the paper you roll your spliffs with.
Not to mention, as Ladislaus has repeatedly pointed out, the science of physics is not inimical to geocentrism, stipulating, as it does, that motion is relative. That being the case, there can only be a philosophical motivation to rail against the Traditional Catholic geocentric cosmology (as you do), and that motivation inevitably ends up being the shifting of focus away from earth as the focal point of Creation. What Catholic can subscribe to that? God Incarnate did not live out His life on Mars, or Betelgeuse, or the Sun - He did so on Earth.
Stick that in your bong and smoke it.
-
And E continues to rev around S...... :detective:
-
Holy Scripture is infallible and is to be interpreted literally. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical "On the Study of Holy Scripture" calls to the attention the rule of St. Augustine in this respect: "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires".
Whiich means, of course, it doesn't have to be taken literally absolutely all the time.
(Not that I'm agreeing with roscoe. He's obviously in error if he thinks the Bible is wrong.)
All I am doing is invoking St Augustine & Pope Leo in order to guard against the Sola Scriptura lunatics. :cheers:
-
We really do need an astronaut to log on here and tell it like it is. That would clear things up.
-
Whiich means, of course, it doesn't have to be taken literally absolutely all the time.
Except that the Church and the Church Fathers have always taken Genesis to be historically and scientifically accurate.
-
And E continues to rev around S...... :detective:
I may have missed it in one of the threads on this/related topic, but you did explain why you said the Word of God is wrong, right? In other words, I'm sure you could not think such a thing and there must be an explanation.
...the Sacred Doctrine of the Catholic Church is the Queen of the Sciences, and all other sciences are her handmaidens. I would again like to stress that this article is an introduction to the vocabulary and principles of Catholic thought. While it is a platform for apologetics, it is not in itself apologetic in tone. As with the first post, the following is taken from the very first question of St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica. Let us remember Catholicism is not just another system of beliefs, but the proper view of reality.
Queen of the Sciences: Understanding the Throne of Theology [Part 1]
1. What is a science?
We have spoken of the architect, but how should we articulate the knowledge of architecture? We may refer to architecture as a science. Any organized body of knowledge that is known through its causes may be called a science. So just as architecture is a body of knowledge that refers to certain principles or causes in the art of construction, biology is said to be the body of knowledge that deals with the observable principles of life, and so on for any science.
2. How do the sciences differ from one another?
Science can be distinguished according to whether it is practical or speculative. Practical sciences have as their end or goal a certain human activity or product. Architecture, politics, and morality are all practical sciences. Architecture is orientated toward buildings, politics toward a just society whereby all may live well, and moral science is orientated toward right action.
Now, whereas the practical sciences consider human operations, the speculative sciences seek truth and contemplate it for its own sake. Speculative science is threefold: the studies of natural science, the studies of mathematics, and the study of the divine science.
3. Is there a natural order to the sciences?
Let us consider the common ground of architecture and music. Their commonality is found in mathematical principles. Yet, how should we articulate this relationship? St. Thomas teaches “there are some [sciences] which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of the intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry, and the like.” However, other sciences are not known in this manner, but “proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science.” Mathematics would then be the higher science from which both architecture and music draw their principles.
Simply speaking, arithmetic is the study of number. Geometry would be the study of number in place. Music would then be the study of number in time, while the science of astronomy would be the study of number in place and time. In this hierarchal understanding, a natural order of the sciences takes a definitive shape.
4. Is Sacred Doctrine a science?
While we can acknowledge that sacred doctrine is an organized body of knowledge, what about its causes? St. Thomas raises the following objection: “every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not admitted by all.” It seems therefore that sacred doctrine cannot be a science.
However, we have already seen that it is not necessary for a science to have self-evident principles. Arithmetic and the like have self-evident principles, while other sciences are “reducible to the conclusions of a higher science,” as geometry and music are both built upon arithmetic. Therefore, to answer the objection, St. Thomas states, “just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.” Moreover, “Sacred Doctrine is a science, because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed.”
Unapologetically, we state that by faith we have certitude in God’s self-revelation, which grants us the truths that are above human reason. These truths, e.g., the Trinity and the Incarnation, are the pillars of divine science, which not only reveals to us those truths that we could not discern from our natural world, but also purifies the natural wisdom humanity did and does discern.
5. Is faith necessary?
Faith is necessary to accept God’s revelation, because those truths exceed the grasp of man’s reason. Moreover, all humanity is orientated toward God; thus the entire divine science is necessary for the salvation of man, as it illuminates those truths about God we would not otherwise know. Man can look at Creation and discern there is a God, but he cannot discern the Trinity or the Incarnation without revelation. However, once those truths are revealed, they are rational, even if they are ultimately mysterious, like the Trinity. For example, on one level we can rationally speak of the Trinity as three persons with one substance, but truly grasping that reality is beyond human comprehension. The very heart of Catholicism’s insistence that faith and reason are harmonious lies in this discussion.
6. Is Sacred Doctrine the Noblest of Sciences?
The science of Sacred Doctrine is primarily a speculative science since it contemplates God and his Truth. However, since God knows both Himself and his works – Creation and man – the divine science is secondarily practical, because it speaks to the activity of humanity.
A science can be higher in two ways: first in the “higher worth of its subject-matter,” and secondly, “reason of its greater certitude.” We spoke at length about the higher ordering the lower sciences in our first discussion regarding architect and the house. Regarding the second point, the divine science differs in certitude from all other sciences, because while other sciences are based on human reason and are subject to error, the divine science as revealed by God and safeguarded by Holy Mother Church –is without the possibility of doctrinal error.
Therefore, the divine science is the queen of the sciences due to its supreme subject matter, the certitude of its truths, and the universality of its principles – for it is the highest wisdom of all sciences since it is itself both a speculative and practical science.
7. Is this a System of Power or Wisdom?
“Knowledge is power” – the banner of our age. While wisdom orders the sciences according to their principles, our modern world only values the sciences that grant us the greatest products. Our esteem of practicality and technology has fragmented our search for truth. Without knowing our Catholic tradition, what science would we claim is highest? Many of us would have defaulted to equating “highest” with “most powerful” or “most productive.”
The Divine Science, our Queen of the Sciences, is not a tyrant seeking to dominate, but a queen who speaks softly. She does not seek to become politics or biology, she simply speaks the higher principles those sciences need to be well ordered – principles that are by definition outside their purview.
. How does the Queen of the Sciences speak to our world?
We must ask ourselves many questions: Are our universities dedicated to a natural order of learning or to producing economic cogs? How has our predilection for power affected our sciences and our understanding of the human person? Are there any higher principles to guide politics, or is it truly just the will of the people? Our culture is rife with these questions, because we have abandoned the divine science of God, reallocated value according to power and the human will, and separated the sciences into autonomous bodies.
Unfortunately, many Christian ecclesial communities have adopted these modern errors. Disorder begets disorder; thus, as the principle of wisdom was unseated by the human will, the divine science of God disintegrated into a heap of fragmented theologies and opinions. The result is a malformed Christian body all too willing to baptize the old pagan ideologies, while presenting itself to the world as something more akin to a personalized fairy tale than a principled science. Though a critique of Protestantism is just in its own right, I say this more to advise Catholics. There are many within our own ranks that would welcome disorder in Holy Mother Church.
In a world – both secular and Christian – that is progressively seeking to enthrone the human will, we must remember the Queen of the Sciences and her order.
Understanding the Throne of Theology
http://www.stpeterslist.com/2931/queen-of-the-sciences-understanding-the-throne-of-theology-part-2/
-
Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4] Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [5] For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.
Is this a condemnation of modernist scientists who embrace uniformitarianism? Would we be so willing to concede that the Earth revolves around the Sun if we believed that the entire universe was created less than 10000 years ago? If the universe is only 10000 years old, how difficult would it be to believe the literal truth from Sacred Scripture that the Sun revolves around the Earth? We ought to be aware that modern science has set itself up as the judge of Sacred Scripture. But St. Peter has warned us. He also says that the just man shall scarcely be saved. But of those who are wilfully ignorant of the truths contained in Sacred Scripture what can we say?
cf. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/68003.htm
-
Clemens Maria, your comment brought to mind
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
Matthew 24:24
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
From the First Vatican Council (1870):
3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
" In matters of faith and moral".....
It does Not Say science..... :cheers:
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
From the First Vatican Council (1870):
3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
" In matters of faith and moral".....
It does Not Say science..... :cheers:
BTW--- the Infallible, Dogmatic Constitution of VI is The Highest Church Authority,
:heretic:
-
It does Not Say science.....
Science falls under the faith part of "in matters of Faith and Morals"
an excerpt from my previous post:
Unapologetically, we state that by faith we have certitude in God’s self-revelation, which grants us the truths that are above human reason. These truths, e.g., the Trinity and the Incarnation, are the pillars of divine science, which not only reveals to us those truths that we could not discern from our natural world, but also purifies the natural wisdom humanity did and does discern.
5. Is faith necessary?
Faith is necessary to accept God’s revelation, because those truths exceed the grasp of man’s reason. Moreover, all humanity is orientated toward God; thus the entire divine science is necessary for the salvation of man, as it illuminates those truths about God we would not otherwise know. Man can look at Creation and discern there is a God, but he cannot discern the Trinity or the Incarnation without revelation. However, once those truths are revealed, they are rational, even if they are ultimately mysterious, like the Trinity. For example, on one level we can rationally speak of the Trinity as three persons with one substance, but truly grasping that reality is beyond human comprehension. The very heart of Catholicism’s insistence that faith and reason are harmonious lies in this discussion.
-
I haven't read your prev post but whether or not the above is from The Constitution, divine and natural science are 2 different things......
Sola Scriptura again.... :roll-laugh1:
-
Is English your first language? :confused1:
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
How can anyone waste their time debating this subject with a heretic who posts the like of this above?
-
Whiich means, of course, it doesn't have to be taken literally absolutely all the time.
Except that the Church and the Church Fathers have always taken Genesis to be historically and scientifically accurate.
I didn't say otherwise. Just that there are bits of Scripture which don't have to be taken literally. It is usually obvious from the context, e.g. the name of the book (Proverbs, Psalms), or an introduction like, "Jesus spoke this parable..."
-
Sola Scriptura again.... :roll-laugh1:
It's not sola scriptura to follow the Church's traditional understanding of the Bible.
(I have an open mind on geocentrism/heliocentrism, fwiw.)
-
The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position. The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.
Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.
It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics such as Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism :fryingpan:
How can anyone waste their time debating this subject with a heretic who posts the like of this above?
I've come to this sad conclusion. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but the doubt is removed with pertinacity.
-
We really do need an astronaut to log on here and tell it like it is. That would clear things up.
A Nasshole?
-
Sola Scriptura again.... :roll-laugh1:
It's not sola scriptura to follow the Church's traditional understanding of the Bible. Correct
(I have an open mind on geocentrism/heliocentrism.)
Hi Clare, your last remark here is something I have pondered on, how should one answer someone who has 'an open mind on geocentrism/heliocentrism.'
Of all the reasons for an 'open mind' on the matter is the fact that science now admits that there are two possible orders for the movements of the heavens that we can observe every day, month, year, or 600 years, a geocentric order or a heliocentric order.
This is like saying there are two truths, or two possible truths so one can keep an open mind.
If however, one is a Catholic, one who believes Jesus when he said 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life..' (John 14:6), then there cannot be two truths for a Catholic, nor two possible truths. There is only ONE truth.
God in His Providence allowed His Church to rule on this matter. Why then can a Catholic believe he can ignore this definition and consider heliocentrism is or could be THAT truth? Why chose the heretical 'truth' over the truth held by every Catholic until the sixteenth century, the order defined by the Church as the truth?
“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,
how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)
Have a little faith and get off the fence.