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

Author Topic: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas  (Read 1949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kiwiboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 518
  • Reputation: +217/-455
  • Gender: Male
Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
« on: May 30, 2018, 04:19:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lest anyone worry, that we have problems accepting when mistaken, St. Thomas thought the earth was round.

    See
    https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round

    But before globalists get all haughty, he also rejected the immaculate conception for a time:
     Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2

    So balance in all things.

    It doesn't detract from the truth of God's creation.

    The globe is an error.
    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017


    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #1 on: May 30, 2018, 05:53:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lest anyone worry, that we have problems accepting when mistaken, St. Thomas thought the earth was round.

    See
    https://tradidi.com/st-thomas-held-and-taught-that-the-earth-is-round

    But before globalists get all haughty, he also rejected the immaculate conception for a time:
     Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2

    So balance in all things.

    It doesn't detract from the truth of God's creation.

    The globe is an error.
    I appreciate your magnanimity and honesty. Thank you.  I agree that the fact St. Thomas held and taught spherical earth does not prove it true .

    I was not, however, using it as a proof of that.  I cited St. Thomas to counter the claim that Copernicus introduced spherical earth to a Catholic Church that accepted flat earth.  St. Thomas was a typical educated Catholic of his time in his acceptance of the globe. This belief was the consensus among Catholics for hundreds of years before Copernicus. 

    Even if the earth were actually flat, this is not what was taught and believed in Catholic universities in the middle ages.  


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #2 on: May 30, 2018, 08:03:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth
    .
    For the last 200 years or so, many anti-Christians have resorted to a scurrilous lie (acting consistently with their worldview1): that the early and medieval Christian Church taught that the earth is flat.2
    .
    One of the most prominent recent examples is probably the most powerful man in the world, the US President Barack Hussein Obama:
    .
    Quote
    “Let me tell you something. If some of these folks [sic] were around when Columbus set sail–[laughter]–they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society [laughter]. They would not have believed that the world was round [applause]. We’ve heard these folks in the past.”3
    Since President Obama also supports infanticide and gαy ‘marriage’4, which are clearly out of line with biblical teaching, should it be surprising that he would also repeat one of the commonest anti-Christian fables?
    .
    What did the early church really teach?                
    .
    Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (1934–) thoroughly debunked the flat earth myth over 20 years ago in his definitive study Inventing the Flat Earth.5
    .
    The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) favourably reviewed this masterpiece:
    .
    Quote
    “There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”6
    Russell showed that flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round [spheroid].
    .
    Russell docuмents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358 ) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
    .

    Dr Henry Richter, Dr Robert Carter, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, and CMI-US CEO Gary Bates discuss flat earth teaching and geocentrism.
    .
    One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.7
    .
    In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round [spheroid]. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Ven. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.8
    .
    Here is what Ven. Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
    .
    Quote
    “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 centre 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 centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
    And the leading church theologian and philosopher of the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:
    .
    Quote
    “The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.”9
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #3 on: May 30, 2018, 08:39:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth
    .
    Figure 1: Richard II of England, coronation portrait, Westminster Abbey.
    Credit: Wikipedia.org
    .
    As early as the 5th century, medieval European kings carried a symbol called the globus cruciger, Latin for ‘cross-bearing orb’, as a Christian symbol of royal power. The orb, usually a golden sphere, represented the earth—hang on, a sphere representing a flat earth—something’s wrong here … oh that’s right, it was a spherical earth. It was topped by a cross to symbolise Christ’s lordship over the earth, and held by the ruler to symbolise that he had been entrusted to rule his lands. In medieval portraits, the scale didn’t indicate physical size but importance, hence the large size of the cross.

    Indeed, there are many pictures portraying Christ Himself holding the orb, the classic Salvator Mundi (Saviour of the World) theme.
    .
    Why did people oppose Columbus?      
    .
    The above demonstrate that Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) was never opposed by flat-earthers, simply because there were none to oppose him, among either church or political leaders. So what was the real issue?
    .
    Columbus was trying to reach India by sea, the ‘long way’ around the earth. But to do that, his ships had to carry enough provisions for the length of the journey. He had learned that the 9th-century Persian astronomer Alfraganus had estimated each degree of latitude spanned “56⅔ miles”. But Columbus thought Alfraganus meant the Roman mile (1,480 m, 4,856 ft), whereas he was using the Arabic mile (1,830 m, 6,004 ft). Thus Columbus thought that the earth’s circuмference was only about ¾ of its actual length of about 40,000 km (25,000 miles). Columbus also greatly underestimated the distance between Japan and the Canary Islands as 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km or 2,300 miles), whereas the distance by sea is more like 19,600 km (12,200 miles).
    .
    It was thus the size of the earth, not the shape, that was under dispute. His critics argued that ships of his day (1492) could not carry enough fresh water and food for such a huge journey. And they were right! Columbus was just lucky that an enormous continent was in the way. He knew nothing of previous Viking discoveries centuries earlier. And he still thought he had landed in the East Indies, the then-current name for the Indian subcontinent. The results of his mistake persist today, in the common name for the Native Americans—‘Indians’, a translation of Columbus’ Spanish term ‘indios’.

    Sailors    
    .
    An example of the misinformation in the ‘education’ system comes from the 20th-century high-school history textbook The American Pageant by Thomas Bailey. Many of its editions claimed, “The superstitious sailors [of Columbus’ crew] … grew increasingly mutinous … because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world.”

    However, sailors were well aware of the shape of the earth. One myth states that people realized that the earth was round because they saw ships slowly sinking below the horizon. But before telescopes, it was more likely the other way round: sailors returning to land saw high mountains before lowlands.

    Also, sailors from the northern hemisphere crossed the equator well before Christ, and reported that in the South, the sun shone from the north. They also knew how to measure their latitude from the angle of the sun at noon, which works only with a spherical earth.
    .
    The rise of the Flat Earth lie        

    The above are the facts about Columbus. The much-parroted flat-earth myth about him comes not from history but from the tales of Washington Irving (1783–1859), The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828 ). Irving was probably America’s first genuine best-selling writer, but he admitted that he was “apt to indulge in the imagination.” Flat-earth belief was certainly a figment of his imagination.
    .
    It was bad enough that this myth entered the public perception thanks to Irving’s wide readership. But it became worse when it acquired the veneer of scholarship, so it could be used as a club with which to bash Christianity. The main propagandists for this cause were the notorious 19th century anti-Christian bigots John William Draper (1811–1882) and Andrew Dickson White (1832–1918 ). Draper, a fine chemist and photographer—first president of the American Chemical Society—but a lousy historian, wrote History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) as a poorly informed polemic against the Church. White was a disgruntled ex-Episcopalian and the founder of Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States. He also published the two-volume work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).
    .
    Both authors relied heavily on the work of Cosmas, portraying his flat-earth teaching as typical rather than the almost forgotten, extreme minority view that it was. And they are the ones most responsible for the discredited ‘conflict thesis’ between Christianity and science, instead of the real history that the Christian world-view was responsible for science in the first place, while it was still-born in other places like ancient Greece and China.10
    .
    Colin Archibald Russell (1928–2013), Emeritus Professor of History of Science and Technology at the Open University, writes:
    .
    Quote
    “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship.”11
    Both J.B. Russell and Gould argue that Draper and White had an agenda to discredit Christians who opposed the then-new theories of Darwin as ‘flat earthers’. Nothing much has changed!
    .
    Flat earth leader is an evolutionist        
    .
    Although hardly anyone in the Church has ever believed the flat earth myth, “Incredibly, some people still do,” wrote Natalie Wolchover in Live Science last year (23 June, 2011) :
    .
    Quote
    “The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.”12
    So next time an evolutionist calls you a ‘flat-earther’, point out that the leading flat-earther is one of his fellow evolutionists!
    .
    Lunar eclipse
    .
    Ancient proof of round [spheroid] earth
    Figure 4: Time-lapse photos of the moon during a lunar partial eclipse,
    clearly showing the circular shadow produced by the ball-shaped earth.
    .
    The ancient Greeks well before Christ, had realized that the earth is a globe by observing lunar eclipses. They realized that at such times, the earth was between the moon and the sun, and it always cast a circular shadow, regardless of the direction, which proves that it’s a globe (see Fig. 4). For example, the famous philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) said:
    .
    Quote
    “Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical. And it is right to call anything that which nature intends it to be, and which belongs to it, rather than which it is by constraint and contrary to nature. The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind—straight, gibbous, and concave—but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.”13
    This lines up with the Bible: Isaiah 40:22 tells us that God “sits above the circle of the earth”.
    Indeed, the Hebrew word
    חוּג

    (khûg) implies ball-shaped, just as Ven. Bede taught about 1,400 years after Isaiah.14
    .
    Summary      
    • Almost all the early and medieval church scholars who commented on the earth’s shape explicitly said it was round [spheroid].
    • Medieval European rulers used a golden sphere or orb called the globus cruciger to represent the earth under Christ’s rule.
    • Columbus’s opponents never disputed the shape of the earth, but only its size—and they were right!
    • The flat earth myth began with a fictional account of Columbus in the 19th century by Washington Irving. Then it was aggressively pushed in influential anti-Christian polemics by Draper and White.
    • A final irony: the leading flat-earther today is an evolutionist.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #4 on: May 30, 2018, 09:19:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • References and notes

    References and notes
    • 1.  Sarfati, J., Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution, creation.com/deceive, 24 September 2008. Return to text.
    • 2.  For many examples, see Bergman, J., The flat-earth myth and creationism, J. Creation 22(2):114–120, 2008; creation.com/flat. Return to text.
    • 3.  Obama, B.H., Speech on energy at Prince George’s County Community College, Largo, MD, 15 March 2012. Return to text.
    • 4.  Muehlenberg, B., The Obamanator and the Decline of the West, billmuehlenberg.com, 12 May 2012; Sarfati, J., gαy ‘marriage’ and the consistent outcome of Genesis compromise, creation.com/gαy, June 2012. Return to text.
    • 5.  Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991. Return to text.
    • 6.  Gould, S.J., The Late Birth of a Flat Earth, in: Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1st paperback ed., pp. 38–50, New York: Three Rivers Press, NY,1997. Return to text.
    • 7.  Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede, The Journal, journallive.co.uk, 13 February 2009. Return to text.
    • 8.  The Galileo affair is another anti-Christian myth of ‘religion v. Science’, although it was really science vs. science. See Sarfati, J., Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact, Creation 31(3):49–51; creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial. Return to text.
    • 9.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 54: The distinction of habits, Article 2, Reply to objection 2.

      .
    • And almost right at the beginning of the Summa, in First Part, Q 1, article 1: Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?, Reply to Objection 2 Thomas discussed methods of proving something. Here, he referred to the roundness of the earth as an example obvious to all: “Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.”

      .
    • In the original Latin, Thomas used rotunda for round. And in First Part, Question 67, Thomas made it clear that he knew the shape of the earth, because he also used the word hemisphere (Latin hemisphaerium), meaning half of a sphere: “Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. … Secondly, as to place, for in one hemisphere there was light, in the other darkness. Thirdly, as to time; because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same hemisphere; and this is signified by the words, “He called the light day, and the darkness night.” Return to text.
    • 10.  Primary source docuмentation is available in my articles, Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009; creation.com/whyscience; and, The biblical roots of modern science, Creation 32(4):32–36, 2010; creation.com/roots. Return to text.
    • 11.  Russell, C.A., “The Conflict of Science and Religion”, in: Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion, p. 15, New York 2000. Return to text.
    • 12.  Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011. Return to text.
    • 13.  Works of Aristotle I: p. 389. Return to text.
    • 14.  [Ed. note: Several atheopaths have attacked both Isaiah and Bede because the earth is not a perfect sphere, although even Bede understood that it has irregularities “similar to a potato” such as mountains and deep-sea trenches. But he realized that this tiny deviation from sphericity that it was reasonable to call the earth a sphere. Also, long after Bede, it was predicted then discovered that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. flattened at the poles. In reality, ‘sphere’ is a very good approximation for the shape of the earth, not an error. Most astronomers today are OK with calling the earth a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’, knowing full well that it’s an approximation. So the same allowance should be made for the Bible. Actually, Sir Isaac Newton, a creationist, was the one who first predicted oblateness from the earth’s rotation.

      .
    • Simple arithmetic should demonstrate how vacuous and desperate this objection is. The earth’s equatorial radius 6,378.1 km, while its polar radius 6,356.8 km. The deepest point in the ocean, Challenger Deep, is 10,916 km deep—<0.2% deviation from sphericity. Ever seen a potato, or even a rubber ball, this spherical? Also, the oblateness, given that the difference between polar and equatorial radii is only 21.3 km, is only 0.3% deviation from a sphere.

      .
    • In most usages, there are degrees of perfection or accuracy. The earth is a perfect sphere down to about 0.3%, which is perfect enough for most people. Scale this down to the size of some playing balls: if a ball were 63.781 mm in one radius and 63.568 mm in a perpendicular radius, one could safely call its shape a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’. It would take a sharp eye indeed to notice that a ~6½-cm ball bulged a bit in the middle, by merely a fifth of a millimetre.]
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #5 on: May 31, 2018, 10:06:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • References and notes

    References and notes
    • 1.  Sarfati, J., Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution, creation.com/deceive, 24 September 2008. Return to text.
    • 2.  For many examples, see Bergman, J., The flat-earth myth and creationism, J. Creation 22(2):114–120, 2008; creation.com/flat. Return to text.
    • 3.  Obama, B.H., Speech on energy at Prince George’s County Community College, Largo, MD, 15 March 2012. Return to text.
    • 4.  Muehlenberg, B., The Obamanator and the Decline of the West, billmuehlenberg.com, 12 May 2012; Sarfati, J., gαy ‘marriage’ and the consistent outcome of Genesis compromise, creation.com/gαy, June 2012. Return to text.
    • 5.  Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991. Return to text.
    • 6.  Gould, S.J., The Late Birth of a Flat Earth, in: Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1st paperback ed., pp. 38–50, New York: Three Rivers Press, NY,1997. Return to text.
    • 7.  Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede, The Journal, journallive.co.uk, 13 February 2009. Return to text.
    • 8.  The Galileo affair is another anti-Christian myth of ‘religion v. Science’, although it was really science vs. science. See Sarfati, J., Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact, Creation 31(3):49–51; creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial. Return to text.
    • 9.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 54: The distinction of habits, Article 2, Reply to objection 2.

      .
    • And almost right at the beginning of the Summa, in First Part, Q 1, article 1: Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?, Reply to Objection 2 Thomas discussed methods of proving something. Here, he referred to the roundness of the earth as an example obvious to all: “Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.”

      .
    • In the original Latin, Thomas used rotunda for round. And in First Part, Question 67, Thomas made it clear that he knew the shape of the earth, because he also used the word hemisphere (Latin hemisphaerium), meaning half of a sphere: “Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. … Secondly, as to place, for in one hemisphere there was light, in the other darkness. Thirdly, as to time; because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same hemisphere; and this is signified by the words, “He called the light day, and the darkness night.” Return to text.
    • 10.  Primary source docuмentation is available in my articles, Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009; creation.com/whyscience; and, The biblical roots of modern science, Creation 32(4):32–36, 2010; creation.com/roots. Return to text.
    • 11.  Russell, C.A., “The Conflict of Science and Religion”, in: Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion, p. 15, New York 2000. Return to text.
    • 12.  Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011. Return to text.
    • 13.  Works of Aristotle I: p. 389. Return to text.
    • 14.  [Ed. note: Several atheopaths have attacked both Isaiah and Bede because the earth is not a perfect sphere, although even Bede understood that it has irregularities “similar to a potato” such as mountains and deep-sea trenches. But he realized that this tiny deviation from sphericity that it was reasonable to call the earth a sphere. Also, long after Bede, it was predicted then discovered that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. flattened at the poles. In reality, ‘sphere’ is a very good approximation for the shape of the earth, not an error. Most astronomers today are OK with calling the earth a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’, knowing full well that it’s an approximation. So the same allowance should be made for the Bible. Actually, Sir Isaac Newton, a creationist, was the one who first predicted oblateness from the earth’s rotation.

      .
    • Simple arithmetic should demonstrate how vacuous and desperate this objection is. The earth’s equatorial radius 6,378.1 km, while its polar radius 6,356.8 km. The deepest point in the ocean, Challenger Deep, is 10,916 km deep—<0.2% deviation from sphericity. Ever seen a potato, or even a rubber ball, this spherical? Also, the oblateness, given that the difference between polar and equatorial radii is only 21.3 km, is only 0.3% deviation from a sphere.

      .
    • In most usages, there are degrees of perfection or accuracy. The earth is a perfect sphere down to about 0.3%, which is perfect enough for most people. Scale this down to the size of some playing balls: if a ball were 63.781 mm in one radius and 63.568 mm in a perpendicular radius, one could safely call its shape a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’. It would take a sharp eye indeed to notice that a ~6½-cm ball bulged a bit in the middle, by merely a fifth of a millimetre.]


    You make such a great point Neil! The references in the post mostly show controversy and 99% of what's above is not written by St. Thomas.  The writers of this prove by their references that their globe has issues. We've all seen a lot of scientists promotes lies, especially in the attempt to trick people into thinking earth is a ball.  St. Thomas isn't actually teaching anything about the shape of the earth per se.  We know this from his two sentence summary insisting whatever the approach, results must be rooted in revelation: "Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.”
    St. Thomas is discussing the relationship between science, theology, philosophy, and Scripture and how different approaches to questions can bring about the same results.  Most importantly, he says: "...As far as they fall within revelation".   The globe earth does not fall within revelation at all.  There is not one proof to date that it does. 
    Thomas does not address what we should do when the purveyors of science become corrupted and promote false doctrine based on false science.  We all know about the abuse of science.  With the Big Bang and evolution of man, of "global warming" and millions year old earth, science which is dependent on the globe.  Given the entire post in context, Thomas is not trying to prove earth a globe, (even if he seems to accept it) but to explain the importance of science and how good science works in and with Catholic thought and revelation.This post is heavily peppered with references by other people in order to push the idea that earth is a globe.  Nobody's knocking good science, but when true science is spun into science falsely so-called, that science will be at the root philosophically and theologically of a demonic religion, which is exactly what has been said in these threads time and again.  And as St. Thomas Aquinas explains here.  Thank you St. Thomas!        

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #6 on: May 31, 2018, 12:26:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • You make such a great point Neil! The references in the post mostly show controversy and 99% of what's above is not written by St. Thomas.  The writers of this prove by their references that their globe has issues. We've all seen a lot of scientists promotes lies, especially in the attempt to trick people into thinking earth is a ball.  St. Thomas isn't actually teaching anything about the shape of the earth per se.  We know this from his two sentence summary insisting whatever the approach, results must be rooted in revelation: "Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.”
    St. Thomas is discussing the relationship between science, theology, philosophy, and Scripture and how different approaches to questions can bring about the same results.  Most importantly, he says: "...As far as they fall within revelation".   The globe earth does not fall within revelation at all.  There is not one proof to date that it does.  
    Didn't you read the article linked by kiwiboy?  This was one among many passages in which St. Thomas mentions the fact that the earth is a sphere.

    "The Angelic Doctor mentions the subject in two passages of the Summa (P. I, Q. I, A. I, ad 2um, and P. I-II, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um) ; also in his commentary on the Sentences (II, D, 24, Q. 2, 2, 5um) ; in his commentary on the Post. Anal. (L. 41), on the Phys. (II, L. 3) ; and more at length in the De Coelo et Mundo (L. II, L. 26, 27, 28 )

    Are you going to try to explain them all away?  In De Coelo et Mundo, he explicitly teaches that the earth is a sphere and gives proofs (from reason) for it.

    Quote
    Its shape must necessarily be spherical. For every portion of earth has weight until it reaches the centre, and the jostling of parts greater and smaller would bring about not a waved surface, but rather compression and convergence of part and part until the centre is reached.

    http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm#2-27

    St. Thomas obviously did not see anything in Scripture that prevented us from using science to determine the shape of the earth.  Or do you wish to claim that this great Saint and Doctor, thinking that Scripture teaches about the shape of the earth, nevertheless ignored it?

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #7 on: May 31, 2018, 01:22:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Didn't you read the article linked by kiwiboy?  This was one among many passages in which St. Thomas mentions the fact that the earth is a sphere.

    "The Angelic Doctor mentions the subject in two passages of the Summa (P. I, Q. I, A. I, ad 2um, and P. I-II, Q. LIV, A. 2 ad 2um) ; also in his commentary on the Sentences (II, D, 24, Q. 2, 2, 5um) ; in his commentary on the Post. Anal. (L. 41), on the Phys. (II, L. 3) ; and more at length in the De Coelo et Mundo (L. II, L. 26, 27, 28 )

    Are you going to try to explain them all away?  In De Coelo et Mundo, he explicitly teaches that the earth is a sphere and gives proofs (from reason) for it.

    http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm#2-27

    St. Thomas obviously did not see anything in Scripture that prevented us from using science to determine the shape of the earth.  Or do you wish to claim that this great Saint and Doctor, thinking that Scripture teaches about the shape of the earth, nevertheless ignored it?
    Had St. Thomas attempted to source what appears to be a casual embrace of the globe you would have something to work with.  But he doesn't even come close.  He isn't even talking about that subject, but another entirely.  He doesn't cite a Father, Scripture passage, nor even science itself, nor explain his position because he uses it as an example for the argument he's posing. So what?  It's not even totally clear what he actually believes.  At best he could be revealing he was swayed by the 'science' put forth at that time.  Science which has been put to the test with far more sophisticated technically advanced scrutiny since that time.
    You said: St. Thomas obviously did not see anything in Scripture that prevented us from using science to determine the shape of the earth.  Of course there is nothing in Scripture that says we can't use science to determine the shape of the earth.  But it must be true science. He makes that point when he says man can come to proper conclusions from the view of philosophy, theology, and science, but it must be in the light of revelation.      


    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #8 on: May 31, 2018, 02:14:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Had St. Thomas attempted to source what appears to be a casual embrace of the globe you would have something to work with.  But he doesn't even come close.  He isn't even talking about that subject, but another entirely.  He doesn't cite a Father, Scripture passage, nor even science itself, nor explain his position because he uses it as an example for the argument he's posing. So what?  It's not even totally clear what he actually believes.  At best he could be revealing he was swayed by the 'science' put forth at that time.  Science which has been put to the test with far more sophisticated technically advanced scrutiny since that time.
    You said: St. Thomas obviously did not see anything in Scripture that prevented us from using science to determine the shape of the earth.  Of course there is nothing in Scripture that says we can't use science to determine the shape of the earth.  But it must be true science. He makes that point when he says man can come to proper conclusions from the view of philosophy, theology, and science, but it must be in the light of revelation.      

    In my last post, I quoted St. Thomas in De Coelo et Mundo.  This means "Of the Heaven and Earth".  The subject of this work is, not surprisingly, cosmology, especially in reference to Aristotle's work De Caelo.  

    Quote
    European philosophers had a similarly complex relationship with De Caelo, attempting to reconcile church doctrine with the mathematics of Ptolemy and the structure of Aristotle. A particularly cogent example of this is in the work of Thomas Aquinas, theologian, philosopher and writer of the 13th century. Known today as St. Thomas of the Catholic Church, Aquinas worked to synthesize Aristotle's cosmology as presented in De Caelo with Christian doctrine, an endeavor that led him to reclassify Aristotle's unmoved movers as angels and attributing the 'first cause' of motion in the celestial spheres to them.[3] Otherwise, Aquinas accepted Aristotle's explanation of the physical world, including his cosmology and physics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens

    In this work, St. Thomas did not mention that the earth is a sphere as an example (as he did in the Summa passage). The entire work was about combining Aristotle's cosmology and physics with Christianity.  St. Thomas rejected the parts of Aristotle that were incompatible with Christianity, creating a Catholic version of cosmology and physics.  In this context, St. Thomas taught that the earth is a sphere and gave proofs for it.  This means that he saw the sphericity of the earth as consistent with Church teaching, including Scripture.

    It is totally clear what he believes.  If it was not clear to you from the short quote I gave, go to the link and read more context.  He believes that that earth is a sphere .  It is also clearthat he believes this to be what Catholics ought to believe.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #9 on: May 31, 2018, 02:58:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In my last post, I quoted St. Thomas in De Coelo et Mundo.  This means "Of the Heaven and Earth".  The subject of this work is, not surprisingly, cosmology, especially in reference to Aristotle's work De Caelo.  
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens

    In this work, St. Thomas did not mention that the earth is a sphere as an example (as he did in the Summa passage). The entire work was about combining Aristotle's cosmology and physics with Christianity.  St. Thomas rejected the parts of Aristotle that were incompatible with Christianity, creating a Catholic version of cosmology and physics.  In this context, St. Thomas taught that the earth is a sphere and gave proofs for it.  This means that he saw the sphericity of the earth as consistent with Church teaching, including Scripture.

    It is totally clear what he believes.  If it was not clear to you from the short quote I gave, go to the link and read more context.  He believes that that earth is a sphere .  It is also clearthat he believes this to be what Catholics ought to believe.
    The problem is that the link you provided, is a summary of what St. Thomas thinks, written by a guy named JFS.  That's fairly useless for me to determine truthfully whether or not the Saint believed in the globe.  If you have actual quotes from the Summa we can go over those. However, the real problem is that St. Thomas makes it clear that if one concludes from other sources what appears to be truth, it must be compatible with revelation, which is Scripture and Tradition.  The globe is not compatible with Scripture, and no Father sources Scripture, let alone expounds so as to prove that the globe is compatible with revelation.  Conversely, many Fathers and Catholics show in great detail how Scripture and flat geocentric earth complement not only each other, but science as well. And they also provide greater insight to the liturgy.  The tiniest bud of the liturgical flower is laid out by God for us clear back to Genesis!    

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #10 on: May 31, 2018, 03:29:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The problem is that the link you provided, is a summary of what St. Thomas thinks, written by a guy named JFS.  That's fairly useless for me to determine truthfully whether or not the Saint believed in the globe.  If you have actual quotes from the Summa we can go over those. However, the real problem is that St. Thomas makes it clear that if one concludes from other sources what appears to be truth, it must be compatible with revelation, which is Scripture and Tradition.  The globe is not compatible with Scripture, and no Father sources Scripture, let alone expounds so as to prove that the globe is compatible with revelation.  Conversely, many Fathers and Catholics show in great detail how Scripture and flat geocentric earth complement not only each other, but science as well. And they also provide greater insight to the liturgy.  The tiniest bud of the liturgical flower is laid out by God for us clear back to Genesis!    
    In reply #6 of this thread I linked to a translation of De Caelo et Mundo.  It is the actual work by St. Thomas and I quoted it directly.  You can go to the link and read the entire thing if you want.  (It is not the Summa, but another work he wrote.)http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm#1-0

    St. Thomas clearly and explicitly teaches that the earth is a sphere.  He therefore must think that the globe is compatible with Scripture.  St. Thomas disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture. This Saint and Doctor of the Church (like St. Bede) understands Scripture as not teaching flat earth.  

    Some people in the patristic period believed in flat earth but then the belief disappeared.  It had not been held by Catholics for over a thousand years until a few like yourself joined into its revival promoted by heretics and pagans.


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #11 on: May 31, 2018, 03:41:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In reply #6 of this thread I linked to a translation of De Caelo et Mundo.  It is the actual work by St. Thomas and I quoted it directly.  You can go to the link and read the entire thing if you want.  (It is not the Summa, but another work he wrote.)http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm#1-0

    St. Thomas clearly and explicitly teaches that the earth is a sphere.  He therefore must think that the globe is compatible with Scripture.  St. Thomas disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture. This Saint and Doctor of the Church (like St. Bede) understands Scripture as not teaching flat earth.  

    Some people in the patristic period believed in flat earth but then the belief disappeared.  It had not been held by Catholics for over a thousand years until a few like yourself joined into its revival promoted by heretics and pagans.
    Thank you for this.  I'm still reading.  But I came across this after he first describes earth where its kind of hard to understand what he's saying but then he says:
    349 III. There are similar disputes about the shape of the earth. Some think it is spherical, others that it is flat and drum-shaped.
    This sort of disputes the notion that he was talking about spherical earth when he brings it up as another possible shape entirely. 

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #12 on: May 31, 2018, 04:55:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for this.  I'm still reading.  But I came across this after he first describes earth where its kind of hard to understand what he's saying but then he says:
    349 III. There are similar disputes about the shape of the earth. Some think it is spherical, others that it is flat and drum-shaped.
    This sort of disputes the notion that he was talking about spherical earth when he brings it up as another possible shape entirely.
    I'm sorry.  I gave it to you in an especially confusing format. The entire work is a commentary on Aristotle's work, also called De Caelo. St. Thomas is going through Aristotle's ideas and arguments and giving his own thoughts on them.  This translation gives the passage from Aristotle (with the original Greek beside) followed by St. Thomas's comments (with the original Latin beside).

    This passage you quote is what Aristotle wrote.  Aristotle was the one saying that there were disputes about the shape of the earth, as indeed there were in his time.

    Here is an English translation that just has the work by St. Thomas:
    http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeCoelo.htm

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #13 on: May 31, 2018, 07:40:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm sorry.  I gave it to you in an especially confusing format. The entire work is a commentary on Aristotle's work, also called De Caelo. St. Thomas is going through Aristotle's ideas and arguments and giving his own thoughts on them.  This translation gives the passage from Aristotle (with the original Greek beside) followed by St. Thomas's comments (with the original Latin beside).

    This passage you quote is what Aristotle wrote.  Aristotle was the one saying that there were disputes about the shape of the earth, as indeed there were in his time.

    Here is an English translation that just has the work by St. Thomas:
    http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeCoelo.htm
    Specifically, what do you think in this work proves St. Thomas believed earth is a globe?

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Jaynek was right on St. Thomas
    « Reply #14 on: May 31, 2018, 08:15:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Specifically, what do you think in this work proves St. Thomas believed earth is a globe?

    Book II Lecture 27

    Quote
    532. Having determined the truth about the earth's place and about its motion or rest, the Philosopher here determines the truth about its shape.

    First he proves that the earth is spherical with natural reasons taken on the part of motion; Secondly, with mathematical and astronomical reasons based on sense observations
    http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeCoelo.htm#2-27

    St. Thomas says that Aristotle determined the truth about the shape of the earth and proved that it is spherical.

    St. Thomas does not simply describe Aristotle's opinion, but call it the truth.