Quote from: BTNYC

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.

They believe the Antarctic surrounds the entire earth, like this:



If you notice this flat earth map is the same as the UN flag, here:



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.

Quote from: Disputaciones

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.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Disputaciones

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.

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.

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.

Which video ?