-
Neil seems to have nothing to actually say about the topic of Flat Earth, other than he fears it and wants it to go away. I think that's pathetic. No one really wants to talk to him on this sub-forum. Jaynek was at least interesting, thoughtful, had a position and tried to defend it. Even Seven seemed to put more thought into it than Neil does. Ladislaus certainly does. But Neil seems to have nothing to offer The Sub-Forum, but whining, complaining and scorn. If he doesn't like Flat Earth, than why does he participate? I think it is because he is afraid of it. If that seems unreasonable, it is because his fear is not motivated by reason; it is motivated by strong emotions, that have overwhelmed his reason, causing him to have such an extreme prejudice against Flat Earth, that he is motivated or rather driven to fight it, by any means necessary, regardless of their veracity/morality.
I pity a man who is enslaved by his fears, but I cannot judge him to harshly. Even St. Peter fearing the Jews, denied Christ.
-
Neil seems to have nothing to actually say about the topic of Flat Earth, other than he fears it and wants it to go away. I think that's pathetic. No one really wants to talk to him on this sub-forum. Jaynek was at least interesting, thoughtful, had a position and tried to defend it. Even Seven seemed to put more thought into it than Neil does. Ladislaus certainly does. But Neil seems to have nothing to offer The Sub-Forum, but whining, complaining and scorn. If he doesn't like Flat Earth, than why does he participate? I think it is because he is afraid of it. If that seems unreasonable, it is because his fear is not motivated by reason; it is motivated by strong emotions, that have overwhelmed his reason, causing him to have such an extreme prejudice against Flat Earth, that he is motivated or rather driven to fight it, by any means necessary, regardless of their veracity/morality.
I pity a man who is enslaved by his fears, but I cannot judge him to harshly. Even St. Peter fearing the Jews, denied Christ.
Its sad, really. I mean, what is so unreasonable about flat earth? That everyone is on the same level playing field? That God literally resides as God above all men? There seems to be an underlying jealousy, a kind of pride in being above and beyond God and other men (relatively speaking) that the globe instigates within those who choose to believe it. It is a strange reversal of the simplicity of truth, a hope to gain human respect by explaining away contradiction and lies. Ball earth is Gnostic through and through. The globe is a modern fig leaf for those hiding from the penetrating eyes of God.
-
Its sad, really. I mean, what is so unreasonable about flat earth?
.
What's so unreasonable about flat-earth? Was that a question you want answered or is it merely rhetorical?
.
But nobody really wants to talk to me on this sub-forum, correct? So that means you don't want my answer, I guess.
.
I have one but first you have to ask me to tell you what it is, since you've taken the liberty to insult me.
.
First I demand an apology for your insult and presumption of my motive, then I need a polite request for an answer.
.
That everyone is on the same level playing field? That God literally resides as God above all men? There seems to be an underlying jealousy, a kind of pride in being above and beyond God and other men (relatively speaking) that the globe instigates within those who choose to believe it. It is a strange reversal of the simplicity of truth, a hope to gain human respect by explaining away contradiction and lies.
.
The lie is flat-earthism, for which there is exactly no evidence nor data.
.
The fact you choose to believe it without any evidence is your own choice.
.
God's existence is not dependent upon our understanding of it because God is not a contingent being, like we are.
.
Flat-earthers seem to think God must conform to our knowledge and comprehension, which is a heresy BTW.
.
Ball earth is Gnostic through and through. The globe is a modern fig leaf for those hiding from the penetrating eyes of God.
.
Flat-earthism is gnostic (not a proper noun) through and through. The flat-earth is a modern fig leaf for those hiding from the penetrating eyes of God.
.
What's so unreasonable about flat-earth?
.
First I need an apology then I need a request to answer the question.
.
-
.
What's so unreasonable about flat-earth? Was that a question you want answered or is it merely rhetorical?
.
But nobody really wants to talk to me on this sub-forum, correct? So that means you don't want my answer, I guess.
.
I have one but first you have to ask me to tell you what it is, since you've taken the liberty to insult me.
.
First I demand an apology for your insult and presumption of my motive, then I need a polite request for an answer.
..
The lie is flat-earthism, for which there is exactly no evidence nor data.
.
The fact you choose to believe it without any evidence is your own choice.
.
God's existence is not dependent upon our understanding of it because God is not a contingent being, like we are.
.
Flat-earthers seem to think God must conform to our knowledge and comprehension, which is a heresy BTW.
..
Flat-earthism is gnostic (not a proper noun) through and through. The flat-earth is a modern fig leaf for those hiding from the penetrating eyes of God.
.
What's so unreasonable about flat-earth?
.
First I need an apology then I need a request to answer the question.
.
No doubt you'll come up with some concocted notion, but flat earth is not unreasonable. Suggesting people are sticking to a ball is what's unreasonable.
-
No doubt you'll come up with some concocted notion, but flat earth is not unreasonable. Suggesting people are sticking to a ball is what's unreasonable.
.
There you go again presuming my intentions.
.
Like I said, I need an apology.
.
-
.
There you go again presuming my intentions.
.
Like I said, I need an apology.
.
An apology? For what? You believe in the globe. Unashamedly. There are no apologies for telling the truth even you agree with!
-
An apology? For what? You believe in the globe. Unashamedly. There are no apologies for telling the truth even you agree with!
He spams Flat Earth threads with gads of comments and goes out of his way to insult everyone who believes in a Flat Earth, but then whines for an apology, when someone complains about it, because he feels insulted: :baby:
When does Neil intend to apologize for the dozens and dozens of insults he's hurled at Flat Earth'ers. Answer: when pigs learn to fly
-
.
Flat-earthism is sillier than the Muppets. You really shouldn't drag them down by association.
.
Here's one of Neil's nicer posts. Oh, but he wants an apology.
-
Not saying he hasn't done what you did in the past, but this is a bad example. He insulted Flatearthism, i.e. your gnostic dogma, and you insulted him as a person. Big difference.
Find an example where he insults a person individually; again, I'm not implying there isn't an example. I think insulting Flatearthists as a whole is also different than insulting them individually, so you might want to steer clear of those too.
I would also like to point out that without Neil adding to your conversations, you would probably get almost no traffic in this sub-forum.
You are right. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Sorry for starting this thread Neil.
-
No, it's most certainly not intrinsically unreasonable. But it's hard for people to let go of their paradigms. If someone has spent his whole life thinking one way about the world and then is confronted with something that doesn't fit the paradigm, there are two possible reactions. You either embrace a paradigm shift or you double down (and the emotion comes form resisting the paradigm shift).
I woke up to a lot of things when I started to look into 9/11. So much in the world isn't what it seems, and we are regularly lied to by the Masonic powers that be. I then came to understand that the entire moon landing was faked. So, then, what else? I don't put it outside the realm of possibility that there's a Masonic conspiracy to promote a false paradigm about our physical world. In fact, relativity is nothing but a scam to explain away why the Michelson-Morley experiment determined that the earth was still and not in motion. I've seen some footage of astronauts operating in alleged low-gravity situations that was obviously faked. Why fake that if you're really up there in a micro-gravity environment?
-
.
What's so unreasonable about flat-earth? Was that a question you want answered or is it merely rhetorical?
It becomes rhetorical if you don't answer...but it is a viable question.
.
But nobody really wants to talk to me on this sub-forum, correct? So that means you don't want my answer, I guess.
We've probably seen your answer somewhere along the way, but I asked it to get an answer.
.
I have one but first you have to ask me to tell you what it is, since you've taken the liberty to insult me.
Taken the liberty to insult you? How? That was never my intention. There are no insults in my response. Even considering the thread was aimed at you, I specifically did not point you out, but pointed 'globers' out. Now, if you were insulted because you chose to deposit yourself within a category for which my description was aimed, that's your problem. But I did not set out to insult *you* nor can anything in my response even remotely suggest I was insulting you.
.
First I demand an apology for your insult and presumption of my motive, then I need a polite request for an answer.
..
The lie is flat-earthism, for which there is exactly no evidence nor data.
Now, there is no way I can provide any kind of apology for not having insulted you. However, if you felt insulted, my apologies. Still, everything written in my first post on this thread was not only true, but specifically not aimed at anyone.
.
The fact you choose to believe it without any evidence is your own choice.
We all know that we flat earthers have evidence. That you choose not to believe the evidence, or summarily dismiss evidence is the problem.
.
God's existence is not dependent upon our understanding of it because God is not a contingent being, like we are.
What's that got to do with anything?
.
Flat-earthers seem to think God must conform to our knowledge and comprehension, which is a heresy BTW.
So, now, if I were you, (because are insulting flat earthers) I guess I would seek an apology right about now.
..
Flat-earthism is gnostic (not a proper noun) through and through.
Saying flat earthism is gnostic does not make it true. In fact, all evidence shows the opposite is true because history of the Church against the pagan globers reveal the heliocentric/globe astronomy has always belonged to gnosticism and occult pagan practice.
-
Neil has made more insults agsinst the person of the flat earthers than can be counted, and they usually consist of some adjective for stupid.
-
Neil has made more insults agsinst the person of the flat earthers than can be counted, and they usually consist of some adjective for stupid.
And that's why I do not engage Neil in debate anymore, which is little more than an exercise in futility. Neil is capable of being civil, if he so chooses, but more often than not, he chooses to insult those who hold to FE.
-
Seriously, though, Neil, what's your motivation for being so into this issue? You've spilled a lot of metaphorical ink on this subject.
What, is it harmful to faith if some people think the earth is flat?
If I believed that something was complete fantasy or lunacy (as you claim about flat earth), let's say that someone thought we were under attack by elves from Mars, I would just say, "uh, OK" and move along. I wouldn't stand there for five hours debating the issue.
-
Seriously, though, Neil, what's your motivation for being so into this issue? You've spilled a lot of metaphorical ink on this subject.
What, is it harmful to faith if some people think the earth is flat?
If I believed that something was complete fantasy or lunacy (as you claim about flat earth), let's say that someone thought we were under attack by elves from Mars, I would just say, "uh, OK" and move along. I wouldn't stand there for five hours debating the issue.
To be fair, the metaphorical ink spills both ways. I don't see many threads started trying to convince people that earth is round. I think 10 out of the 12 last threads were promoting flat earth. I do like what you had stated earlier about accepting or rejecting a paradigm shift. I can not speak for Neil, but what drew me into discussion and debates where the polarized statements...or statements of absolute proof. There is a spectrum of belief among the flat earthers, yet everything they post is an absolute proof. Going back, there were statements about the moon being translucent, planets not really existing, satellites existing, gravity not existing, and its blasphemous and an insult to God to believe that the earth is a globe...there are even disagreements between the flat earthers of how things work such as moonlight. For being absolutely convinced the earth is not a globe, there is no working model, or set of absolute flat earth facts they all agree on. To my knowledge, they can't predict solar and lunar eclipses, or explain lunar phases or eclipses with any model. I don't believe the book of Enoch counts as biblical or scientific explanations as previously posted. Just my thoughts on the matter.
-
To be fair, the metaphorical ink spills both ways. I don't see many threads started trying to convince people that earth is round. I think 10 out of the 12 last threads were promoting flat earth. I do like what you had stated earlier about accepting or rejecting a paradigm shift. I can not speak for Neil, but what drew me into discussion and debates where the polarized statements...or statements of absolute proof. There is a spectrum of belief among the flat earthers, yet everything they post is an absolute proof. Going back, there were statements about the moon being translucent, planets not really existing, satellites existing, gravity not existing, and its blasphemous and an insult to God to believe that the earth is a globe...there are even disagreements between the flat earthers of how things work such as moonlight. For being absolutely convinced the earth is not a globe, there is no working model, or set of absolute flat earth facts they all agree on. To my knowledge, they can't predict solar and lunar eclipses, or explain lunar phases or eclipses with any model. I don't believe the book of Enoch counts as biblical or scientific explanations as previously posted. Just my thoughts on the matter.
To be fair, people don't try to convince anyone the world is round because that is the very paradigm that is being challenged. The status quo, which is shown on so many levels to be false, literally doesn't hold water. Don't forget, just because we can see through the haze and recognize we're being lied to doesn't necessarily endow us with the years of information we would like to have to overcome it instantly. After all, we're being lied to, false information is being dumped down our gullets and the truth has been buried. You may not be convinced, or care to know, but if heliocentric, spherical earth is a lie, its certainly a whopper, and there must be something pretty huge at stake. One sure way to NOT know, is to ignore what is said here and go about your business. But the suggestion that flat earthers cannot predict solar eclipses (they are mathematically predicted so anyone can do it) or that fe'rs don't have considerable information they do agree on would be less than true. Keep an open mind. There's so much more to know.
-
Seriously, though, Neil, what's your motivation for being so into this issue? You've spilled a lot of metaphorical ink on this subject.
What, is it harmful to faith if some people think the earth is flat?
If I believed that something was complete fantasy or lunacy (as you claim about flat earth), let's say that someone thought we were under attack by elves from Mars, I would just say, "uh, OK" and move along. I wouldn't stand there for five hours debating the issue.
.
If you've been paying attention, I've already explained this.
.
-
And that's why I do not engage Neil in debate anymore, which is little more than an exercise in futility. Neil is capable of being civil, if he so chooses, but more often than not, he chooses to insult those who hold to FE.
.
Anytime you or any of the other flat-earthers want to have a reasonable discussion, I'm ready and waiting.
.
So far, no dice.
.
-
An apology? For what? You believe in the globe. Unashamedly. There are no apologies for telling the truth even you agree with!
.
Go back to the OP and read it and your reply. Here, I'll post it for you:
.
.
Neil seems to have nothing to actually say about the topic of Flat Earth, other than he fears it and wants it to go away. I think that's pathetic. No one really wants to talk to him on this sub-forum. Jaynek was at least interesting, thoughtful, had a position and tried to defend it. Even Seven seemed to put more thought into it than Neil does. Ladislaus certainly does. But Neil seems to have nothing to offer The Sub-Forum, but whining, complaining and scorn. If he doesn't like Flat Earth, than why does he participate? I think it is because he is afraid of it. If that seems unreasonable, it is because his fear is not motivated by reason; it is motivated by strong emotions, that have overwhelmed his reason, causing him to have such an extreme prejudice against Flat Earth, that he is motivated or rather driven to fight it, by any means necessary, regardless of their veracity/morality.
I pity a man who is enslaved by his fears, but I cannot judge him to harshly. Even St. Peter fearing the Jews, denied Christ.
.
.
Its sad, really. I mean, what is so unreasonable about flat earth? That everyone is on the same level playing field? That God literally resides as God above all men? There seems to be an underlying jealousy, a kind of pride in being above and beyond God and other men (relatively speaking) that the globe instigates within those who choose to believe it. It is a strange reversal of the simplicity of truth, a hope to gain human respect by explaining away contradiction and lies. Ball earth is Gnostic through and through. The globe is a modern fig leaf for those hiding from the penetrating eyes of God.
.
The OP presumes to know my intentions, and gets it all wrong (because I have already explained them elsewhere which the OP ignores). And you should know better. But no, you commisserate with the error by saying "Its sad" [sic].
.
So besides continuing to misspell, you have gone right along with the insult. You can't bother to hear what I have said already but instead prattle on about "even playing field" and God's residence.
.
I want an apology from you for accusing me of having bad intentions, lacking "veracity/morality", of being "afraid" of flat-earthism and for having nothing to contribute.
.
As soon as you apologize for your presumption of my intentions, then I will re-state them for all to see.
.
First things first. First comes your apology, then comes my explanation. And I think you might like it, actually.
.
-
To be fair, people don't try to convince anyone the world is round because that is the very paradigm that is being challenged. The status quo, which is shown on so many levels to be false, literally doesn't hold water.
.
On the surface, posting here has been a challenge for me to think about the multitude of reasons that lead us inexorably to the necessary conclusion of the sphericity of the earth. Like you say, the status quo is already accepting of it so there are not many summaries of all the various reasons to which we can refer to know the earth is not "flat."
.
But it goes much deeper than that, and has to do with public perception of flat-earthers. Don't you want to know?
.
First your apology for accusing me of having ulterior motives, including "immoral" ones. (see previous post)
.
-
.
On the surface, posting here has been a challenge for me to think about the multitude of reasons that lead us inexorably to the necessary conclusion of the sphericity of the earth. Like you say, the status quo is already accepting of it so there are not many summaries of all the various reasons to which we can refer to know the earth is not "flat."
.
But it goes much deeper than that, and has to do with public perception of flat-earthers. Don't you want to know?
.
First your apology for accusing me of having ulterior motives, including "immoral" ones. (see previous post)
.
I accuse you of having immoral ulterior motives when it comes to refusing to admit the horizontal horizon is horizontal.
-
...but what drew me into discussion and debates where the polarized statements...or statements of absolute proof. There is a spectrum of belief among the flat earthers, yet everything they post is an absolute proof. Going back, there were statements about the moon being translucent, planets not really existing, satellites existing, gravity not existing, and its blasphemous and an insult to God to believe that the earth is a globe...there are even disagreements between the flat earthers of how things work such as moonlight. For being absolutely convinced the earth is not a globe, there is no working model, or set of absolute flat earth facts they all agree on. To my knowledge, they can't predict solar and lunar eclipses, or explain lunar phases or eclipses with any model. I don't believe the book of Enoch counts as biblical or scientific explanations as previously posted. Just my thoughts on the matter.
Who, in this present day and age, has all the answers about anything?
A flat earther must start sifting through decades of lies and false science. It is a big job and a tall order for any one person, and for the most part, we are on our own searching for the truth. It is a journey.
No one knew all the answers about 9/11 when the truth started to come out.
More than likely one would be laughed right outta town if they tried to inform anyone that their own government had something to do with that infamous day.
Can you imagine a convert to the Catholic Faith navigating their way through the confusion in The Church today?
Some examples;
Sedevacantism/resistance, Indult/FSSP, SSPX/Motu Propio, valid/non-valid Sacraments, laicized/not laicized priests, this disobedient bishop/and that one over there too, this chapel is crazy/that one is no better :confused:
Hmmm, so where are all the answers? Shouldn’t Catholics at the very least have the answers?
Prayer+Sacrifice=Miracles right? :incense:
-
.
On the surface, posting here has been a challenge for me to think about the multitude of reasons that lead us inexorably to the necessary conclusion of the sphericity of the earth. Like you say, the status quo is already accepting of it so there are not many summaries of all the various reasons to which we can refer to know the earth is not "flat."
.
But it goes much deeper than that, and has to do with public perception of flat-earthers. Don't you want to know?
.
First your apology for accusing me of having ulterior motives, including "immoral" ones. (see previous post)
.
Too bad you missed your anxiously anticipated apology. That's good though. I've decided that I prefer to have you believe that you were victorious for having made me look rude for not apologizing to you. :popcorn:
-
Sacred Heart of Jesus holding globe
-
Sacred Heart of Jesus holding globe
Yes, this depiction is likely more recent because the figures on the globe appear to have continents--a modern interpretation. But in the more ancient depictions of the globus cruciger, the globe always represented the entirety of creation, not just earth... as the Fathers have explained. This would be far more consistent with doctrine because God is the God of all creation, not just of the earth. If the globe is only the earth, that suggests that God isn't the God of the heavens, or the planets and stars, for instance. Catholics never promoted a globe earth until it started creeping into art once the condemnation of heliocentrism was disparaged and forgotten. Up till then, Christendom reflected details of its doctrine far more carefully in art. One parallel would be the Sr Faustina Christ devoid of a heart. Such a thing was unheard of in ancient times.
-
Sacred Heart of Jesus holding globe
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
What, is it harmful to faith if some people think the earth is flat?
If I believed that something was complete fantasy or lunacy (as you claim about flat earth), let's say that someone thought we were under attack by elves from Mars, I would just say, "uh, OK" and move along. I wouldn't stand there for five hours debating the issue.
Yes it is harmful to proclaim the earth is flat. It causes scandal. St. Augustine wrote about what happens when Catholics speak against well-known facts concerning "the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world":
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
Dictionaries give definitions for flat-earther like "A person who believes or advocates an outlandish, discredited theory; a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth despite overwhelming evidence." When Catholics become associated with this idea, it destroys our credibility, making us less able to communicate truths necessary for salvation.
I am grateful that Neil keeps posting against flat earth, making it clear that only a small minority of trads accept a flat earth.
Keep up the good work, Neil.
-
Yes it is harmful to proclaim the earth is flat. It causes scandal. St. Augustine wrote about what happens when Catholics speak against well-known facts concerning "the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world":
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
Dictionaries give definitions for flat-earther like "A person who believes or advocates an outlandish, discredited theory; a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth despite overwhelming evidence." When Catholics become associated with this idea, it destroys our credibility, making us less able to communicate truths necessary for salvation.
I am grateful that Neil keeps posting against flat earth, making it clear that only a small minority of trads accept a flat earth.
Keep up the good work, Neil.
I am grateful that Neil keeps posting against flat earth and in the process is converting more people to our side. Keep up the good work Neil. NEIL OBSTAT IS THE BIGGEST PROMOTER OF THE FLAT EARTH ON CATHINFO.COM.
-
Yes it is harmful to proclaim the earth is flat. It causes scandal. St. Augustine wrote about what happens when Catholics speak against well-known facts concerning "the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world":
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
Dictionaries give definitions for flat-earther like "A person who believes or advocates an outlandish, discredited theory; a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth despite overwhelming evidence." When Catholics become associated with this idea, it destroys our credibility, making us less able to communicate truths necessary for salvation.
I am grateful that Neil keeps posting against flat earth, making it clear that only a small minority of trads accept a flat earth.
Keep up the good work, Neil.
Seriously? Are you suggesting that it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing that a pagan hear a Christian teach the true meaning of Holy Scripture?
That's right. You better not say yes.
-
Seriously? Are you suggesting that it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing that a pagan hear a Christian teach the true meaning of Holy Scripture?
That's right. You better not say yes.
They might convert. ;)
-
Seriously? Are you suggesting that it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing that a pagan hear a Christian teach the true meaning of Holy Scripture?
That's right. You better not say yes.
See, you create a false dichotomy. You make it sound that your interpretation of scripture for the purpose of FE is the true interpretation of Holy Scripture, and you bate Jayne into an rigged question. You personally use the book of Enoch to explain moon phases, not part of scripture. You are presenting your idea of truth as absolute, and truly Catholic, but for the last couple hundred years a single statue of the Sacred Heart or any of the Immaculate Heart of Mary standing on/or depicting a flat earth, you can not name one traditional priest that support your interpretation. If it was such a obvious absolute truth why isn't it part of Catechisms and or any basic Catholic teachings? Why was never taught in any of tens thousands of Catholic schools through out the last several hundred years?
-
See, you create a false dichotomy. You make it sound that your interpretation of scripture for the purpose of FE is the true interpretation of Holy Scripture, and you bate Jayne into an rigged question. You personally use the book of Enoch to explain moon phases, not part of scripture. You are presenting your idea of truth as absolute, and truly Catholic, but for the last couple hundred years a single statue of the Sacred Heart or any of the Immaculate Heart of Mary standing on/or depicting a flat earth, you can not name one traditional priest that support your interpretation. If it was such a obvious absolute truth why isn't it part of Catechisms and or any basic Catholic teachings? Why was never taught in any of tens thousands of Catholic schools through out the last several hundred years?
Why do you mention the Catholic catechism, when you do not believe in it yourself? Why would you care about whether or not Enoch is a part of scripture, since you are not Catholic? Why do you mention the terms "truly Catholic," above?
-
They might convert. ;)
Conversion is only allowed if potential converts accept the pagan globe-earth model.
-
Seriously? Are you suggesting that it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing that a pagan hear a Christian teach the true meaning of Holy Scripture?
That's right. You better not say yes.
If you were teaching the true meaning of Holy Scripture, there would not be a problem. Unfortunately, you put your personal interpretation of Scripture in the place of Church teaching. That is definitely a disgraceful and dangerous thing.
-
Why do you mention the Catholic catechism, when you do not believe in it yourself? Why would you care about whether or not Enoch is a part of scripture, since you are not Catholic? Why do you mention the terms "truly Catholic," above?
Even a non-Catholic can see that what you are claiming to be Catholic is no such thing. He can identify your internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies. Sometime even a non-Catholic can recognize the truth.
-
Even a non-Catholic can see that what you are claiming to be Catholic is no such thing. He can identify your internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies. Sometime even a non-Catholic can recognize the truth.
So why would he want to do so, as a non-Catholic? Why would a non-Catholic want to try to tell us Catholics about what the Catholic faith teaches, or what it doesn't teach?
Do you really believe that a freemason is capable of discerning the truths of the Catholic faith? Why do you support him in such an effort?
-
So why would he want to do so, as a non-Catholic? Why would a non-Catholic want to try to tell us Catholics about what the Catholic faith teaches, or what it doesn't teach?
Do you really believe that a freemason is capable of discerning the truths of the Catholic faith? Why do you support him in such an effort?
Obviously a freemason is not capable of discerning all the truths of the Catholic faith or he would become Catholic. Flat earth, however, is so glaringly and obviously wrong, that even a freemason can tell.
It is a good sign that RA cares enough about truth to object to flat earth. Perhaps the desire for truth will eventually lead him to Catholicism.
-
See you already did that last time, instead of answering or addressing one question, you made it about me. Happensby created a false dichotomy and tried to pin Jayne. Were my questions out of line or ridiculous?
Even though you didn't acknowledge one of my questions, I will answer your questions:
Q: Why do you mention the Catholic catechism, when you do not believe in it yourself?
A: It provides the basic tenants for children to learn. If belief that the earth is a globe was "pagan," "heretical," or "blasphemous," as many of the FE people claim, that would indicate that belief in the globe earth wasn't truly Catholic. If they FE had the support of the Church over the last several hundred years, wouldn't FE have been taught at an early age as a part of a child's spiritual education along with their schooling. The concept of public schools are relatively new over the last several hundred years. Education was primarily Catholic, yet FE was never taught.
Q: Why would you care about whether or not Enoch is a part of scripture, since you are not Catholic?
A: Its a matter of curiosity for me. The same person who just talked about teaching the "TRUE meaning of the Holy Scripture" (in regards to FE) previously explained the movements of the sun and moon from the book of Enoch...which to my knowledge is not part of scripture and has other things not necessarily supported by the Catholic Church.
Q:Why do you mention the terms "truly Catholic," above?
A: Is a person truly Catholic if they believe something heretical or something pagan? No you would say that they are outside the Church. Yet, is that not the implication when saying these things about people on this forum that believe the earth is a globe? There is no half way heretic, either they are or they are not. There is no partial pagan, either they are or they are not. So you can't claim someone believes in a heresy/pagan global earth and remain truly Catholic.
There I answered your questions. Am I way off in left field? I would ask that you go back to my original questions
-
Catholics who deny Scripture teaches a flat earth are grossly unaware how the smallest or most seemingly unrelated words can show the truth of a teaching when highlighted by the Fathers. For instance, the Bible passage that points to the truth of the Immaculate Conception is Luke 1:28, the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary at the Annunciation, "Hail, full of grace." In the original Greek of the New Testament, the phrase "full of grace" is comprised in the word kecharitomene. This is from where the seed of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is gleaned. That, and Tradition testify to the Glory of Mary. The simple words, "full of grace" point to the fact that Mary did not sin. In the same way, the Fathers of the Church point to far more descriptive passages of the form of God's creation regarding the earth when it says: Gen 1:6 "And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 9 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day." Scripture continues to describe the earth saying the heavens are stretched over the earth like a tent. That as far as east is from the west, that is how far God removes sin from us, etc. Now, had the Fathers never mentioned any of this, it would still remain true and obvious. But they did comment. Several of them tell us that Scripture is to be taken literally when it comes to the dome. That because Scripture says so, is why we believe the dome exists and there's water above the dome. And even that the land is circuмscribed like a wheel, etc. Now, just because you refuse to look at the teachings of the Fathers, or refuse to accept them doesn't change anything. Protestants do the same with Luke 1:28 and deny a most important Catholic truth.
-
See, you create a false dichotomy. You make it sound that your interpretation of scripture for the purpose of FE is the true interpretation of Holy Scripture, and you bate Jayne into an rigged question. You personally use the book of Enoch to explain moon phases, not part of scripture. You are presenting your idea of truth as absolute, and truly Catholic, but for the last couple hundred years a single statue of the Sacred Heart or any of the Immaculate Heart of Mary standing on/or depicting a flat earth, you can not name one traditional priest that support your interpretation. If it was such a obvious absolute truth why isn't it part of Catechisms and or any basic Catholic teachings? Why was never taught in any of tens thousands of Catholic schools through out the last several hundred years?
Sir, it isn't my interpretation, the Fathers of the Church say it. You complain that I use Enoch to explain moon phases? Well, you use pagan science to try to prove the opposite. How is that Catholic? If there were not one single Catholic priest to defend the reality of the Divine Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, that wouldn't stop me from defending it with all the teachings Scripture and Tradition provide. Many do not believe anymore because they do not respect Tradition or Scripture. But its still there. The truth of creation was provided throughout the centuries and the false model condemned in 1633. People chose to deny that. That's why Catholic schools never taught it for years. But that doesn't change anything. It is a buried truth whose time has come and a truth that will become more manifest as the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr globalists create from their false world a living hell for all. Hopefully, before you die, you will accept the truth.
-
If you were teaching the true meaning of Holy Scripture, there would not be a problem. Unfortunately, you put your personal interpretation of Scripture in the place of Church teaching. That is definitely a disgraceful and dangerous thing.
Oh, and you are the arbiter of the true meaning of Scripture? Give it a rest, Jaynek. You have no proof for anything you think.
-
Oh, and you are the arbiter of the true meaning of Scripture? Give it a rest, Jaynek. You have no proof for anything you think.
I have quoted at least four different popes and two Doctors of the Church that back up what I'm saying. You just deny or ignore them and carry on as if you had never seen it.
I have neither the time nor patience to keep posting the same things to people who refuse to accept it. This is why I appreciate that Neil keeps putting the truth forward, rather than leaving the flat-earthers unchallenged in their little ghetto.
-
I have quoted at least four different popes and two Doctors of the Church that back up what I'm saying. You just deny or ignore them and carry on as if you had never seen it.
I have neither the time nor patience to keep posting the same things to people who refuse to accept it. This is why I appreciate that Neil keeps putting the truth forward, rather than leaving the flat-earthers unchallenged in their little ghetto.
Nothing the popes or Doctors you quoted say what you pretend they are saying. You falsely apply stuff and call it proof. You've been shown by myself and others you quote out of context, but you carry on and pretend it applies. One thing is certain to me at this point and that's that you who deny Church teaching, deny Church condemnations, and do so without proof, while you gather to disparage teachings, are fully aware of what you are doing. You know you're wrong because you back each other without reason or purpose, only to deny, without gleaning any truth whatsoever, even after Scripture and the Fathers were very specifically quoted. There is a name for that. It is called unbelief. Go not believe.
-
If you are a Muslim and believe in their ways, you might want to know what is in their teaching. Understand everything they teach, even their mysteries.
http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/qurans-geocentric-universe/ (http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/qurans-geocentric-universe/)
Below not my words the link above explains:
"What if Allah didn’t want to freak out the people by describing the world in a way they didn't understand? Well, he already did that when He told them that they would be raised up after death. When the Prophet claimed he went to Jerusalem in one night. So that obviously can't be the reason.
Maybe Allah didn’t want to correct the scientific misunderstandings of the time?
To me, this is one of the biggest issues in the Quran. I cannot see how the creator of the universe would describe the world in such an awkward and incorrect way. He could have said it in a way that was vague enough so that it wouldn’t have upset the people of the time, yet still be true to this day."
Since this is a Catholic forum and with the exceptions of a few shills mainly this is what the Catholics teach:
Catholic teaching was when the Blessed Mother desired the miraculous metal to be designed she instructed Catherine Labouré, a novice in the community of the Daughters of Charity in Paris, and summoned her to the chapel.
"Mary gave her this mission in a vision during evening meditation on November 27, 1830. She saw Mary standing on what seemed to be half a globe and holding a golden globe in her hands as if offering it to heaven. On the globe was the word “France,” and our Lady explained that the globe represented the whole world, but especially France. The times were difficult in France, especially for the poor who were unemployed and often refugees from the many wars of the time. France was first to experience many of those troubles which ultimately reached other parts of the world and are even present today. Streaming from rings on Mary's fingers as she held the globe were many rays of light."
"The vision then changed to show our Lady standing on a globe with her arms now outstretched and with the dazzling rays of light still streaming from her fingers."
Continue reading.
http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx (http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx)
I for one will stick with the Blessed Mother!
-
"Mary gave her this mission in a vision during evening meditation on November 27, 1830. She saw Mary standing on what seemed to be half a globe and holding a golden globe in her hands as if offering it to heaven. On the globe was the word “France,” and our Lady explained that the globe represented the whole world, but especially France. The times were difficult in France, especially for the poor who were unemployed and often refugees from the many wars of the time. France was first to experience many of those troubles which ultimately reached other parts of the world and are even present today. Streaming from rings on Mary's fingers as she held the globe were many rays of light."
"The vision then changed to show our Lady standing on a globe with her arms now outstretched and with the dazzling rays of light still streaming from her fingers."
Continue reading.
http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx (http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx)
I for one will stick with the Blessed Mother!
Yes, on the Miraculous Medal Mary is standing on a curved surface.
Now, are her feet resting on land, water and people, or the Firmament?
-
If you are a Muslim and believe in their ways, you might want to know what is in their teaching. Understand everything they teach, even their mysteries.
http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/qurans-geocentric-universe/ (http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/qurans-geocentric-universe/)
Below not my words the link above explains:
"What if Allah didn’t want to freak out the people by describing the world in a way they didn't understand? Well, he already did that when He told them that they would be raised up after death. When the Prophet claimed he went to Jerusalem in one night. So that obviously can't be the reason.
Maybe Allah didn’t want to correct the scientific misunderstandings of the time?
To me, this is one of the biggest issues in the Quran. I cannot see how the creator of the universe would describe the world in such an awkward and incorrect way. He could have said it in a way that was vague enough so that it wouldn’t have upset the people of the time, yet still be true to this day."
Since this is a Catholic forum and with the exceptions of a few shills mainly this is what the Catholics teach:
Catholic teaching was when the Blessed Mother desired the miraculous metal to be designed she instructed Catherine Labouré, a novice in the community of the Daughters of Charity in Paris, and summoned her to the chapel.
"Mary gave her this mission in a vision during evening meditation on November 27, 1830. She saw Mary standing on what seemed to be half a globe and holding a golden globe in her hands as if offering it to heaven. On the globe was the word “France,” and our Lady explained that the globe represented the whole world, but especially France. The times were difficult in France, especially for the poor who were unemployed and often refugees from the many wars of the time. France was first to experience many of those troubles which ultimately reached other parts of the world and are even present today. Streaming from rings on Mary's fingers as she held the globe were many rays of light."
"The vision then changed to show our Lady standing on a globe with her arms now outstretched and with the dazzling rays of light still streaming from her fingers."
Continue reading.
http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx (http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx)
I for one will stick with the Blessed Mother!
Heliocentrism and the globe are widely accepted by pagans, but not all pagans. Muslims did believe on one issue with Christendom--geocentrism. Also, Mary doesn't stand on a globe. She stands on a dome. :-\
-
If you are a Muslim and believe in their ways, you might want to know what is in their teaching. Understand everything they teach, even their mysteries.
http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/qurans-geocentric-universe/ (http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/qurans-geocentric-universe/)
Below not my words the link above explains:
"What if Allah didn’t want to freak out the people by describing the world in a way they didn't understand? Well, he already did that when He told them that they would be raised up after death. When the Prophet claimed he went to Jerusalem in one night. So that obviously can't be the reason.
Maybe Allah didn’t want to correct the scientific misunderstandings of the time?
To me, this is one of the biggest issues in the Quran. I cannot see how the creator of the universe would describe the world in such an awkward and incorrect way. He could have said it in a way that was vague enough so that it wouldn’t have upset the people of the time, yet still be true to this day."
Since this is a Catholic forum and with the exceptions of a few shills mainly this is what the Catholics teach:
Catholic teaching was when the Blessed Mother desired the miraculous metal to be designed she instructed Catherine Labouré, a novice in the community of the Daughters of Charity in Paris, and summoned her to the chapel.
"Mary gave her this mission in a vision during evening meditation on November 27, 1830. She saw Mary standing on what seemed to be half a globe and holding a golden globe in her hands as if offering it to heaven. On the globe was the word “France,” and our Lady explained that the globe represented the whole world, but especially France. The times were difficult in France, especially for the poor who were unemployed and often refugees from the many wars of the time. France was first to experience many of those troubles which ultimately reached other parts of the world and are even present today. Streaming from rings on Mary's fingers as she held the globe were many rays of light."
"The vision then changed to show our Lady standing on a globe with her arms now outstretched and with the dazzling rays of light still streaming from her fingers."
Continue reading.
http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx (http://www.amm.org/aboutamm/miraculous%20medal%20story.aspx)
I for one will stick with the Blessed Mother!
Our Blessed Mother is standing on the Firmament. The horizontal horizon is horizontal.
-
Ha Ha Ho Ho Hee Hee :D ;D
The Church says its a globe, I choose to believe in the Church and I urge those who say they are Catholic not to mock Our Lady with strange novelties, you will always be safe with the Blessed Virgin Mary regarding this issue and all she teaches.
Pray for those who hold to mistaken ideas. :pray:
-
I have quoted at least four different popes and two Doctors of the Church that back up what I'm saying. You just deny or ignore them and carry on as if you had never seen it.
I have neither the time nor patience to keep posting the same things to people who refuse to accept it. This is why I appreciate that Neil keeps putting the truth forward, rather than leaving the flat-earthers unchallenged in their little ghetto.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
-
Ha Ha Ho Ho Hee Hee :D ;D
The Church says its a globe, I choose to believe in the Church and I urge those who say they are Catholic not to mock Our Lady with strange novelties, you will always be safe with the Blessed Virgin Mary regarding this issue and all she teaches.
Pray for those who hold to mistaken ideas. :pray:
The Church NOWHERE says Mary stands on a globe. Where's the other half of the globe?
-
The Church NOWHERE says Mary stands on a globe. Where's the other half of the globe?
MyrnaM is working on her CGI attempt to stich in the bottom half of the globe in hopes of fooling people into thinking Mary is standing on a globe.
DIDN'T WORK :fryingpan: MyrnaM!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRgdHkWIa2s&t=73s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRgdHkWIa2s&t=73s)
It's a GLOBE
-
Don't fall for the unity of the One World Religion, FLAT EARTHERS
Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11arcan.htm)
Our brothers and children from every quarter of the globe, messages which bespoke a welcome to ... hundred bishops from all sections of the globe were reunited with Us before the tomb
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11arcan.htm
Sollicitudo pastoralis - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm)
Church spread throughout the whole globe by divine disposition, urges and impels Us to attend to fostering and preserving the Orders of men religious instituted by this holy See
www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm
Praedecessores Nostros - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm)
Catholic religion in the farthest parts of the globe. Finally the Irish nation zealously honors and understands divine Peter whose humble representative We are, and whose dignity
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm
Quod Apostolici Muneris - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm)
Benedict XIV did not fail to unmask the evil counsels of the sects, and to warn the faithful of the whole globe against the ruin which would be wrought. Later on again, when a
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm
Vigilanti Cura - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm)
in other quarters of the globe. It is equally the duty of the Bishops of the entire Catholic world to unite in vigilance over this universal and potent form of entertainment and
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm
Inscrutabili Dei Consilio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm)
and — by uplifting the standard of redemption in all quarters of the globe, by introducing, or shielding under her protection, the sciences and arts, by founding and taking into
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm
Depuis Le Jour - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm)
Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe, and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism. He
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm
Le voci che da tutti - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm)
College from all points of the globe, even the most remote, to the Ecuмenical Council.Glorious St. Joseph! Here, here is your place as “Protector of the Universal Church.” We
www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm
Populorum Progressio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6develo.htm)
across the surface of the globe, leading them to recognize, across all frontiers, the faces of their brothers, the faces of their friend”.[63]76. Excessive economic, social and
www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6develo.htm
On the Catholic Priesthood - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11catho.htm)
Us from every part of the globe. Our reason was that We regarded this celebration not so much as a homage to Our Person, as a dutiful tribute of honor to the dignity of the
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11catho.htm
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRgdHkWIa2s&t=73s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRgdHkWIa2s&t=73s)
It's a GLOBE
NO IT IS NOT A GLOBE! :really-mad2: :fryingpan: MyrnaM
-
Don't fall for the unity of the One World Religion, FLAT EARTHERS
Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11arcan.htm)
Our brothers and children from every quarter of the globe, messages which bespoke a welcome to ... hundred bishops from all sections of the globe were reunited with Us before the tomb
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11arcan.htm
Sollicitudo pastoralis - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm)
Church spread throughout the whole globe by divine disposition, urges and impels Us to attend to fostering and preserving the Orders of men religious instituted by this holy See
www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm
Praedecessores Nostros - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm)
Catholic religion in the farthest parts of the globe. Finally the Irish nation zealously honors and understands divine Peter whose humble representative We are, and whose dignity
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm
Quod Apostolici Muneris - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm)
Benedict XIV did not fail to unmask the evil counsels of the sects, and to warn the faithful of the whole globe against the ruin which would be wrought. Later on again, when a
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm
Vigilanti Cura - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm)
in other quarters of the globe. It is equally the duty of the Bishops of the entire Catholic world to unite in vigilance over this universal and potent form of entertainment and
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm
Inscrutabili Dei Consilio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm)
and — by uplifting the standard of redemption in all quarters of the globe, by introducing, or shielding under her protection, the sciences and arts, by founding and taking into
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm
Depuis Le Jour - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm)
Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe, and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism. He
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm
Le voci che da tutti - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm)
College from all points of the globe, even the most remote, to the Ecuмenical Council.Glorious St. Joseph! Here, here is your place as “Protector of the Universal Church.” We
www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm
Populorum Progressio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6develo.htm)
across the surface of the globe, leading them to recognize, across all frontiers, the faces of their brothers, the faces of their friend”.[63]76. Excessive economic, social and
www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6develo.htm
On the Catholic Priesthood - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11catho.htm)
Us from every part of the globe. Our reason was that We regarded this celebration not so much as a homage to Our Person, as a dutiful tribute of honor to the dignity of the
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11catho.htm
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRgdHkWIa2s&t=73s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRgdHkWIa2s&t=73s)
It's a GLOBE
Ha ha. Its certainly not a globe. If its a globe, its only half a globe. But wait! That is a dome. The Church's truths cannot be denied or added to. You're adding to the bottom half of what Mary is not standing on and calling it a globe. Pagan sophistries! She is standing on the dome of heaven, the veil between this life, and eternal life, leading us up to heaven. There's no teaching that says Mary stands on a globe. For what purpose would Mary stand on the North Pole? To see Santa? Don't live in a dream world you have to make excuses for and make things up. Open your eyes and accept the Church's teachings as they are handing on to you.
-
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
You know TIE, if this got through, made some kind of inroads, it would ruin the deniers. Alas. It is not falling on deaf ears entirely. CATHOLICS HEAR YOU! This is the repeat that cannot be repeated enough. The horizon, by definition, cannot be curved because saying that which is horizontal is also curved, is a lie. Psalm 52:3 Thou hast loved malice more than goodness: and iniquity rather than to speak righteousness.
-
Blah, blah and more blah, you guys sound like a broken record or an empty tin can.
How is this for my CGI
-
Someone make them think!
-
Blah, blah and more blah, you guys sound like a broken record or an empty tin can.
How is this for my CGI
:applause:
-
The horizon, by definition, cannot be curved because saying that which is horizontal is also curved, is a lie.
:applause:
-
:applause:
LOL Three thumbs down for saying a perfectly true statement proves they KNOW they are wrong. No one is that stupid.
-
Yes, on the Miraculous Medal Mary is standing on a curved surface.
Now, are her feet resting on land, water and people, or the Firmament?
Firmament, of course.
Blue dome with clouds and stars. No land.
Firmament.
-
Even a non-Catholic can see that what you are claiming to be Catholic is no such thing. He can identify your internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies. Sometime even a non-Catholic can recognize the truth.
Are you speaking of yourself?
Because your personal version of Catholicism is full of inconsistencies that don't resemble the true faith at all.
-
Church described the apparition, not I, Globe means curve, she is standing on a globe, see the curve! She is holding a globe, not a frisbee. Did you know that the Church prior to Vatican II had to approve religious art that hung in churches? Have you ever seen an image of Christ holding a frisbee, no but you have seen many images of Christ holding a globe. Approved art.
Readers pay no mind to the detractors search yourself what the One World Religion will be like. New Age, Flat-earthers and
Islamic (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605089/Pope-embraces-grand-imam-historic-Vatican-meeting-bid-bring-Catholic-Muslim-churches-together.html) These people are here to see how easy it will be to get Traditional Catholics to accept one of their false ideas.
Don't fall for it, pray to the Blessed Mother for that special grace to know the truth, love the truth and accept the truth.
Wear your miraculous medal, get it blessed and wear it, put one on all your children.
Don't pay attention to the shills here pretending they care for you, see their charity! :facepalm:
-
Church described the apparition, not I, Globe means curve, she is standing on a globe, see the curve! She is holding a globe, not a frisbee. Did you know that the Church prior to Vatican II had to approve religious art that hung in churches? Have you ever seen an image of Christ holding a frisbee, no but you have seen many images of Christ holding a globe. Approved art.
Readers pay no mind to the detractors search yourself what the One World Religion will be like. New Age, Flat-earthers and
Islamic (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605089/Pope-embraces-grand-imam-historic-Vatican-meeting-bid-bring-Catholic-Muslim-churches-together.html) These people are here to see how easy it will be to get Traditional Catholics to accept one of their false ideas.
Don't fall for it, pray to the Blessed Mother for that special grace to know the truth, love the truth and accept the truth.
Wear your miraculous medal, get it blessed and wear it, put one on all your children.
Don't pay attention to the shills here pretending they care for you, see their charity! :facepalm:
Yes, I see the curve of the firmament.
Quote from: happenby (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47689.msg589750#msg589750) on Thu Jan 18 2018 13:40:21 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
The horizon, by definition, cannot be curved because saying that which is horizontal is also curved, is a lie.
-
Church described the apparition, not I, Globe means curve, she is standing on a globe, see the curve! She is holding a globe, not a frisbee. Did you know that the Church prior to Vatican II had to approve religious art that hung in churches? Have you ever seen an image of Christ holding a frisbee, no but you have seen many images of Christ holding a globe. Approved art.
Readers pay no mind to the detractors search yourself what the One World Religion will be like. New Age, Flat-earthers and
Islamic (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605089/Pope-embraces-grand-imam-historic-Vatican-meeting-bid-bring-Catholic-Muslim-churches-together.html) These people are here to see how easy it will be to get Traditional Catholics to accept one of their false ideas.
Don't fall for it, pray to the Blessed Mother for that special grace to know the truth, love the truth and accept the truth.
Wear your miraculous medal, get it blessed and wear it, put one on all your children.
Don't pay attention to the shills here pretending they care for you, see their charity! :facepalm:
I just gave you a thumbs up for your absolute stupidity. :applause:
-
I just gave you a thumbs up for your absolute stupidity. :applause:
The truth within you made you do it, thanks!
Your guardian angel is working! :applause:
-
The truth within you made you do it, thanks!
Your guardian angel is working! :applause:
God will never turn our present earth into a globe to stroke your inner Pagan self.
-
ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS, OF SAlNTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES.
The Twenty-Fifth Session
Council Fathers – 1563
And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happens that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.
(https://stephenbrannen.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/unknown-artist-christ-enthroned-as-heavenly-king-cathedral-basilica-of-st-louis-undated.jpg?w=960)
-
God will never turn our present earth into a globe to stroke your inner Pagan self.
With God's grace I will obey the Church, NOT YOU!
-
The truth within you made you do it, thanks!
Your guardian angel is working! :applause:
So you espouse lies? You are saying the horizon is curved? What math class did you pass with that logic? What basis is there for saying such a ridiculous thing? You have imbibed an idea and keep trying to make it work. Why would you do that? Heliocentrism was condemned because it is contrary to reason, Scripture and the Fathers. The earth is not a globe. Hey TIE? Could you post that thing again?
-
ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS, OF SAlNTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES.
The Twenty-Fifth Session
Council Fathers – 1563
And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happens that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.
(https://stephenbrannen.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/unknown-artist-christ-enthroned-as-heavenly-king-cathedral-basilica-of-st-louis-undated.jpg?w=960)
Christ holding creation. All of creation, not just the pagan globe. Please don't offend us with the condemned version of pagan globalism. Globus cruciger is the whole of creation. The dome above... the foundation of a fixed flat earth... hell below. That ball has already been explained by the Fathers. Look it up. Or don't. But you have zero proof that what you're suggesting is taught in the Church when the Fathers taught otherwise.
-
With God's grace I will obey the Church, NOT YOU!
The Church has not said that we have to believe in a globe earth.
-
These arm-chair exegetes think they can come in here, flash a couple pictures and prove a lie. What? You people only prove you don't know anything about what the Church teaches and that you have imbibed a modern lie. Pagan globalism is bearing down on us all with its nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and you guys are shooting at the good guys. Unbelievable!
-
With God's grace I will obey the Church, NOT YOU!
You continue to obey your Pagan gathering. I will continue to obey the Catholic Church.
-
Heliocentrism was condemned because it is contrary to reason, Scripture and the Fathers. The earth is not a globe.
When heliocentrism was condemned in 1633, virtually all Catholics believed in a globe earth. The Ptolemaic geocentric model (that Galileo argued against) included a globe earth. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism does not support your position at all. You have been told this multiple times by various people. It is yet another example of you ignoring truth.
-
When heliocentrism was condemned in 1633, virtually all Catholics believed in a globe earth. The Ptolemaic geocentric model (that Galileo argued against) included a globe earth. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism does not support your position at all. You have been told this multiple times by various people. It is yet another example of you ignoring truth.
It is you who are wrong. :fryingpan: Jaynek
-
Hey TIE? Could you post that thing again?
Just in case somebody missed it.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
When heliocentrism was condemned in 1633, virtually all Catholics believed in a globe earth. The Ptolemaic geocentric model (that Galileo argued against) included a globe earth. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism does not support your position at all. You have been told this multiple times by various people. It is yet another example of you ignoring truth.
We have been told error from you and others, multiple times. We are not bound to obey you, or your pagan views regarding the 'globe earth.'
-
You continue to obey your Pagan gathering. I will continue to obey the Catholic Church.
Meg, In reference to your question and my previous post, this is exactly what I meant.
-
When heliocentrism was condemned in 1633, virtually all Catholics believed in a globe earth. The Ptolemaic geocentric model (that Galileo argued against) included a globe earth. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism does not support your position at all. You have been told this multiple times by various people. It is yet another example of you ignoring truth.
Oh, please, do prove that virtually all Catholics believed in a globe earth in 1633!!!! You shuffle in nonsense and call it facts without even the slightest concern for providing proof. Show us all that Catholics believed in the globe earth in 1633! I do want to see that! And then, my dear, if you somehow come up with that proof, (yea, right?) you must prove that they were correct and in communion with the Church on the matter. Don't make statements you can't back up, I'll call you on it every time.
WAITING...
-
Christ holding creation. All of creation, not just the pagan globe. Please don't offend us with the condemned version of pagan globalism. Globus cruciger is the whole of creation. The dome above... the foundation of a fixed flat earth... hell below. That ball has already been explained by the Fathers. Look it up. Or don't. But you have zero proof that what you're suggesting is taught in the Church when the Fathers taught otherwise.
Oh you poor little victim you sound like a Demoncrat right now crying; are you being paid for by Soros when he buys a crowd?
Notice you are not worried about offending God.
-
Meg, In reference to your question and my previous post, this is exactly what I meant.
I have no idea what you are getting at.
You refer to the Catholic catechism, but you are not Catholic. You are a Protestant freemason. and yet you try to tell Catholics what they are supposed to believe or not believe, and Jayne supports you in that effort.
-
Oh you poor little victim you sound like a Demoncrat right now crying; are you being paid for by Soros when he buys a crowd?
Notice you are not worried about offending God.
:laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2:
-
The Church has not said that we have to believe in a globe earth.
Believe whatever you want Meg, I will believe the Church, Jesus Christ and His Mother and the papal teachings I posted. Along with Our Ladys words.
Woe to those who prefer to listen to false teachers who quote their own agenda, not the Church. The flat fantasy and twisted.. frisbees novelties.
WoW... come Dick see what TIE learned to do, see Jane, see. TIE made a biggie! Look, Look Dick, see Jane see!
That must mean he is correct and the papal teachings are wrong.
The bigger they are the harder they fall. Down, down Jane, see TIE go down.
TIE is so clever with his CIG he makes emotions too! Go, go TIE make more for Dick AND Jane.
-
Believe whatever you want Meg, I will believe the Church, Jesus Christ and His Mother and the papal teachings I posted. Along with Our Ladys words.
Woe to those who prefer to listen to false teachers who quote their own agenda, not the Church. The flat fantasy and twisted.. frisbees novelties.
WoW... come Dick see what TIE learned to do, see Jane, see. TIE made a biggie! Look, Look Dick, see Jane see!
That must mean he is correct and the papal teachings are wrong.
The bigger they are the harder they fall. Down, down Jane, see TIE go down.
:laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2: :laugh1: :jester: :popcorn::laugh2:
-
Believe whatever you want Meg, I will believe the Church, Jesus Christ and His Mother and the papal teachings I posted. Along with Our Ladys words.
Woe to those who prefer to listen to false teachers who quote their own agenda, not the Church. The flat fantasy and twisted.. frisbees novelties.
WoW... come Dick see what TIE learned to do, see Jane, see. TIE made a biggie! Look, Look Dick, see Jane see!
That must mean he is correct and the papal teachings are wrong.
The bigger they are the harder they fall. Down, down Jane, see TIE go down.
Where has the Church said that the earth is a globe?
-
Believe whatever you want Meg, I will believe the Church, Jesus Christ and His Mother and the papal teachings I posted. Along with Our Ladys words.
Woe to those who prefer to listen to false teachers who quote their own agenda, not the Church. The flat fantasy and twisted.. frisbees novelties.
WoW... come Dick see what TIE learned to do, see Jane, see. TIE made a biggie! Look, Look Dick, see Jane see!
That must mean he is correct and the papal teachings are wrong.
The bigger they are the harder they fall. Down, down Jane, see TIE go down.
TIE is so clever with his CIG he makes emotions too! Go, go TIE make more for Dick AND Jane.
Why are you mocking people without proof of your argument? Stop making statements you cannot back up.
-
We have been told error from you and others, multiple times. We are not bound to obey you, or your pagan views regarding the 'globe earth.'
You are obliged to tell the truth. Pretending that the condemnation of heliocentrism supports believing in flat earth is intellectually dishonest. Even if the earth were actually flat, it would be false to distort history as you continually do.
Any thorough source of information about Galileo will say that the model he was arguing with was the Ptolemaic one. Ptolemy's work is freely available on the Internet and anyone can see for himself that Ptolemy taught the earth is a globe. Virtually everybody, geocentrists and heliocentrists alike, at that time believed in a globe earth. It is obvious that the condemnation of heliocentrism does not imply a condemnation of a globe earth. The people who issued the condemnation of heliocentrism themselves believed in a globe earth.
There is no reasonable way to deny these facts.
-
Oh you poor little victim you sound like a Demoncrat right now crying; are you being paid for by Soros when he buys a crowd?
Notice you are not worried about offending God.
Where is your proof that the Church accepted heliocentrism and that earth is a globe, ma'am? I'll take your silence as proof you didn't know what you were talking about and wanted to prove a point without information.
-
I did back them up, if you are afraid to look at the links, so be it.
None of what I posted was my opinion, unlike the posts here from your ilk.
Except my Dick and Jane book interpretations of what I remember in kindergarten.
Dick and Jane (https://www.google.com/search?q=Dick+and+Jane&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjggqm2xOLYAhVNzWMKHXWMCIkQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=633)
heliocentrism??? I only posted about the globe earth. Re-read!
-
Oh, please, do prove that virtually all Catholics believed in a globe earth in 1633!!!! You shuffle in nonsense and call it facts without even the slightest concern for providing proof. Show us all that Catholics believed in the globe earth in 1633! I do want to see that! And then, my dear, if you somehow come up with that proof, (yea, right?) you must prove that they were correct and in communion with the Church on the matter. Don't make statements you can't back up, I'll call you on it every time.
WAITING...
No, you do not want to see it. I have already shown the evidence for this and you either ignore it completely or explain it away. And this is what you do with all the evidence that you are wrong. You choose to be blind.
-
You are obliged to tell the truth. Pretending that the condemnation of heliocentrism supports believing in flat earth is intellectually dishonest. Even if the earth were actually flat, it would be false to distort history as you continually do.
Any thorough source of information about Galileo will say that the model he was arguing with was the Ptolemaic one. Ptolemy's work is freely available on the Internet and anyone can see for himself that Ptolemy taught the earth is a globe. Virtually everybody, geocentrists and heliocentrists alike, at that time believed in a globe earth. It is obvious that the condemnation of heliocentrism does not imply a condemnation of a globe earth. The people who issued the condemnation of heliocentrism themselves believed in a globe earth.
There is no reasonable way to deny these facts.
No. Pretending that the condemnation of heliocentrism DOESN'T include round earth is intellectually dishonest. You don't know the argument. You came in in the middle of a discussion for which you have no information, but rather bogus opinion. It is NOT obvious that the condemnation of heliocentrism does not imply condemnation of the globe. Prove what you say or don't say it. The Fathers decry the globe with many quotes and explanation. You have nothing to the contrary.
-
No, you do not want to see it. I have already shown the evidence for this and you either ignore it completely or explain it away. And this is what you do with all the evidence that you are wrong. You choose to be blind.
So, you're saying you produced evidence that Catholics in 1633 believed earth was a globe? Ma'am, that is an outright lie. You did nothing of the kind.
-
I did back them up, if you are afraid to look at the links, so be it.
None of what I posted was my opinion, unlike the posts here from your ilk.
Except my Dick and Jane book interpretations of what I remember in kindergarten.
Dick and Jane (https://www.google.com/search?q=Dick+and+Jane&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjggqm2xOLYAhVNzWMKHXWMCIkQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=633)
heliocentrism??? I only posted about the globe earth. Re-read!
Oh my globe! You don't even know what you're saying!
-
So, you're saying you produced evidence that Catholics in 1633 believed earth was a globe? Ma'am, that is an outright lie. You did nothing of the kind.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/conflating-geocentrism-with-flat-earth/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/conflating-geocentrism-with-flat-earth/)
-
I have no interest in telling you what to believe or not believe. You never responded to my questions, instead asking me different questions. I answered them and was referring TiE's post as an example of my
You continue to obey your Pagan gathering. I will continue to obey the Catholic Church.
You had asked why do you mention the terms "truly Catholic," above?
I answered: Is a person truly Catholic if they believe something heretical or something pagan? No you would say that they are outside the Church. Yet, is that not the implication when saying these things about people on this forum that believe the earth is a globe? There is no half way heretic, either they are or they are not. There is no partial pagan, either they are or they are not. So you can't claim someone believes in a heresy/pagan global earth and remain truly Catholic
I am not telling you what to believe, I'm observing that its the unchallenged view among FE that if you believe that the earth is a globe then you are really Catholic. If you want to believe the earth is flat then fine, I just disagree that excludes you from Catholicism.
-
I have no interest in telling you what to believe or not believe. You never responded to my questions, instead asking me different questions. I answered them and was referring TiE's post as an example of my
You had asked why do you mention the terms "truly Catholic," above?
I answered: Is a person truly Catholic if they believe something heretical or something pagan? No you would say that they are outside the Church. Yet, is that not the implication when saying these things about people on this forum that believe the earth is a globe? There is no half way heretic, either they are or they are not. There is no partial pagan, either they are or they are not. So you can't claim someone believes in a heresy/pagan global earth and remain truly Catholic
I am not telling you what to believe, I'm observing that its the unchallenged view among FE that if you believe that the earth is a globe then you are really Catholic. If you want to believe the earth is flat then fine, I just disagree that excludes you from Catholicism.
We, as Catholics make claims about our religion. You, as a non-Catholic, cannot. And you aren't the one who gets to decide what claims we are making.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/conflating-geocentrism-with-flat-earth/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/conflating-geocentrism-with-flat-earth/)
That doesn't prove anything she asked for. You made a false statement.
-
I have no interest in telling you what to believe or not believe. You never responded to my questions, instead asking me different questions. I answered them and was referring TiE's post as an example of my
You had asked why do you mention the terms "truly Catholic," above?
I answered: Is a person truly Catholic if they believe something heretical or something pagan? No you would say that they are outside the Church. Yet, is that not the implication when saying these things about people on this forum that believe the earth is a globe? There is no half way heretic, either they are or they are not. There is no partial pagan, either they are or they are not. So you can't claim someone believes in a heresy/pagan global earth and remain truly Catholic
I am not telling you what to believe, I'm observing that its the unchallenged view among FE that if you believe that the earth is a globe then you are really Catholic. If you want to believe the earth is flat then fine, I just disagree that excludes you from Catholicism.
Again, you are making claims about what Catholicism is or isn't. That's not your perview. If you want to continue to teach us about what Catholicism is or isn't, that's up to you. I'll continue to point out that you are not a Catholic by choice.
-
We, as Catholics make claims about our religion. You, as a non-Catholic, cannot. And you aren't the one who gets to decide what claims we are making.
That is absurd. Anybody can make observations about what the Church teaches or what flat earthers claim. RA has shown a lot more commitment to intellectual honesty than you have.
It looks like he made an argument you were unable to answer so you are trying to change the subject into a personal attack on him.
-
That doesn't prove anything she asked for. You made a false statement.
This.
-
Oh my globe! You don't even know what you're saying!
I am not saying anything, just pointing out that when Our Lady designed her Miraculous Medal she wanted the image shown as her standing on a globe, she even held a globe in her hand if you research the story.
Now looking at these more modern Vatican II medals notice how they are slowly removing the globe, to go along with the One World Religion teaching of the earth as a novel shape.
Past and present Vatican II Medals (https://www.google.com/search?q=Miraculous+Medal&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgh8Ht0uLYAhVR1GMKHb8UAaoQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=633#imgrc=BLagqqKHMLk3IM:)
I feel certain if the earth was flat, Our Lady would have known this and left the curve out as not to offend.
-
That is absurd. Anybody can make observations about what the Church teaches or what flat earthers claim. RA has shown a lot more commitment to intellectual honesty than you have.
It looks like he made an argument you were unable to answer so you are trying to change the subject into a personal attack on him.
You are the one who refuses to answer.
-
I am not saying anything, just pointing out that when Our Lady designed her Miraculous Medal she wanted the image shown as her standing on a globe, she even held a globe in her hand if you research the story.
Now looking at these more modern Vatican II medals notice how they are slowly removing the globe, to go along with the One World Religion teaching of the earth as a novel shape.
Past and present Vatican II Medals (https://www.google.com/search?q=Miraculous+Medal&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgh8Ht0uLYAhVR1GMKHb8UAaoQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=633#imgrc=BLagqqKHMLk3IM:)
I feel certain if the earth was flat, Our Lady would have known this and left the curve out as not to offend.
Our Lady is standing on the firmament. I am happy to correct you.
-
Makes one wonder why in her words she didn't say firmament but said globe to the saint.
Perhaps you might want to read the story. There are several different youtubes or descriptions on the Internet, all saying "globe" none says "firmament"
Take your pick!
-
I am not saying anything, just pointing out that when Our Lady designed her Miraculous Medal she wanted the image shown as her standing on a globe, she even held a globe in her hand if you research the story.
Now looking at these more modern Vatican II medals notice how they are slowly removing the globe, to go along with the One World Religion teaching of the earth as a novel shape.
Past and present Vatican II Medals (https://www.google.com/search?q=Miraculous+Medal&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgh8Ht0uLYAhVR1GMKHb8UAaoQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=633#imgrc=BLagqqKHMLk3IM:)
I feel certain if the earth was flat, Our Lady would have known this and left the curve out as not to offend.
Our Lady is fully aware she stands on the firmament and you are not without the knowledge of that now. What you 'feel' is not something you can insist upon if you really want to know what is true. Preconceived notions are responsible for all kinds of error.
-
Makes one wonder why in her words she didn't say firmament but said globe to the saint.
Perhaps you might want to read the story. There are several different youtubes or descriptions on the Internet, all saying "globe" none says "firmament"
Take your pick!
From what I recall, only some of the versions, or account of the apparition, say anything abut a globe.
-
I am not saying anything, just pointing out that when Our Lady designed her Miraculous Medal she wanted the image shown as her standing on a globe, she even held a globe in her hand if you research the story.
Now looking at these more modern Vatican II medals notice how they are slowly removing the globe, to go along with the One World Religion teaching of the earth as a novel shape.
Past and present Vatican II Medals (https://www.google.com/search?q=Miraculous+Medal&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgh8Ht0uLYAhVR1GMKHb8UAaoQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=633#imgrc=BLagqqKHMLk3IM:)
I feel certain if the earth was flat, Our Lady would have known this and left the curve out as not to offend.
Our Lady is standing on the half dome of the firmament. There is not reason why she would leave the curve of the firmament out.
-
Makes one wonder why in her words she didn't say firmament but said globe to the saint.
Perhaps you might want to read the story. There are several different youtubes or descriptions on the Internet, all saying "globe" none says "firmament"
Take your pick!
The picture speaks for itself.
-
One would think that a Catholic would appreciate that Scripture describes a dome, that Our Lady stands at the dividing point between heaven and earth assisting us to heaven. But there is nothing at all in history, Tradition or the Fathers that suggest that Mary would have a reason for standing on the North Pole of the earth. Why not the South Pole? Or Jerusalem? The fact that there is tradition for it, that there is no tradition for the pagan notion of globe earth, let alone that Scripture describes all of this perfectly, should be the attraction to bring the Faithful to the truth. But then, I digress. This is after all, a matter of Faith. It is not given to all.
-
One would think that a Catholic would appreciate that Scripture describes a dome, that Our Lady stands at the dividing point between heaven and earth assisting us to heaven. But there is nothing at all in history, Tradition or the Fathers that suggest that Mary would have a reason for standing on the North Pole of the earth. Why not the South Pole? Or Jerusalem? The fact that there is tradition for it, that there is no tradition for the pagan notion of globe earth, let alone that Scripture describes all of this perfectly, should be the attraction to bring the Faithful to the truth. But then, I digress. This is after all, a matter of Faith. It is not given to all.
I still have never heard a proper description of the Firmament on the globe by any Catholic globalist yet..hmm? I would think they’d want to teach us the true version of Creation that includes all aspects of Scripture. You know, a working model
-
I still have never heard a proper description of the Firmament on the globe by any Catholic globalist yet..hmm? I would think they’d want to teach us the true version of Creation that includes all aspects of Scripture. You know, a working model
Excellent point! With all the CONTRADICTIONS coming from a pagan model the Church never considered viable, we definitely should take a good long look at the glaring OMISSIONS of the globe! As a heads up for the opposition, there are dozens and I haven't even made a proper study of it yet. Hmmm... We could be here forever.
-
I still have never heard a proper description of the Firmament on the globe by any Catholic globalist yet..hmm? I would think they’d want to teach us the true version of Creation that includes all aspects of Scripture. You know, a working model
That is a great question, the description of the Firmament. Since Our Lady explained to the Saint when she said "this globe represents the world creation and all people, not just France." I wonder do you who insist it is only a Firmament; do people live also on the Firmament, according to your teachings?
Or is it ... IN THE Firmament? Hmmmmmmmmmm!
-
That is a great question, the description of the Firmament. Since Our Lady explained to the Saint when she said "this globe represents the world creation and all people, not just France." I wonder do you who insist it is only a Firmament; do people live also on the Firmament, according to your teachings?
Or is it ... IN THE Firmament? Hmmmmmmmmmm!
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
A Ha! it was you who posted that exact "copy and paste" above on Myforever.blog/blog a short time ago.
LoL :jester:
-
That is a great question, the description of the Firmament. Since Our Lady explained to the Saint when she said "this globe represents the world creation and all people, not just France." I wonder do you who insist it is only a Firmament; do people live also on the Firmament, according to your teachings?
Or is it ... IN THE Firmament? Hmmmmmmmmmm!
The quote you provide here already supports the flat earth, but the point you're missing is that Our Lady stands on the top of a dome that covers earth. It is the top part of the "globe" of creation. That means the top is the dome, with flat earth in the middle and the pit of hell makes up the bottom of creation. That is the only way the Fathers speak of a globe, that is, in relation to all of creation. But, if you speak of the dome, the firmament, it makes up the top portion of the creation and is the boundary between heaven and earth.
Its beyond me how people continue to ignore the fact that the Church has always been geocentric specifically because scripture describes it that way. Even Wiki admits that.
1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church – paragraph 105 says “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Emphasis added.)
The Catholic Church has overwhelmingly declared the geocentric model to be factual and bases it in scripture. Wikipedia explains...
Catholic geocentricity
| This date-September 2007 may require cleanup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup) to meet Wikipedia's quality standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style). Please improve this date-September 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_geocentrism&action=edit) if you can. (September 2007) |
The interpretation of scripture by the Church fathers is asserted by the geocentrists to be unanimously in favor of a geocentrist position[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. The early Church Fathers such as Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) and Origen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) argued against the heliocentrism of the pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism) Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks) well before Copernicus' time. Modern geocentrists often quote these works which seem to admonish that scriptural references about geocentrism not be interpreted as allegorical or phenomenological since such an interpretation could lead to the appearance that the Holy Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit) (the inspirer of the Scriptures) might be lying
-
If you ever care to take the time to research the story, when Our Lady said the quote above, (I should have mentioned, my fault) She wasn't speaking about the design and how she wanted it, she said the quote when she was holding the globe in her hand, the entire globe not as you all like to point out, half a globe. Thinking that makes everything okay in your line of thinking. You must admit she could have just as easily held in her hand a disk like dish or some other image that makes your teaching creditable.
I thank you for your reply, however.
-
Its beyond me how people continue to ignore the fact that the Church has always been geocentric specifically because scripture describes it that way. Even Wiki admits that.
1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church – paragraph 105 says “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Emphasis added.)
The Catholic Church has overwhelmingly declared the geocentric model to be factual and bases it in scripture.
You keep repeating the same wrong things as if somehow they will become true if you say them enough.
The geocentric model that was at one time accepted by the Church included a globe earth. Catholics have believed in a globe earth for most of our history. Geocentric does not equal flat earth. Scripture does not say the earth is flat. The Church has never taught the earth is flat. The condemnation of heliocentrism was removed in 1820 and there is no obligation on Catholics to believe geocentrism.
You are not defending the Church. You are not defending Scripture. All you are doing is spouting nonsense.
-
You keep repeating the same wrong things as if somehow they will become true if you say them enough.
The geocentric model that was at one time accepted by the Church included a globe earth. Catholics have believed in a globe earth for most of our history. Geocentric does not equal flat earth. Scripture does not say the earth is flat. The Church has never taught the earth is flat. The condemnation of heliocentrism was removed in 1820 and there is no obligation on Catholics to believe geocentrism.
You are not defending the Church. You are not defending Scripture. All you are doing is spouting nonsense.
No, the geocentric model never included the globe. Prove that. You say that, but you cannot prove that. You assume that. Scripture doesn't have to say earth is flat. It describes earth as flat, with a dome, that extends across it like a tent, with ends, four corners, founded on pillars, and above the dome is water, with the sun, moon and stars in the firmament below that. You say it isn't flat, so show how earth is a globe. Show how the Fathers teach earth is a globe. They didn't. They accepted it as it is described which is not only reasonable (the globe is totally unreasonable) but they accepted it as Scripture described and quotes have been provided to show that. The Church, based on Scripture alone, condemned heliocentrism, of which the globe is a long standing component. Scripture is easy enough to understand. You prefer to believe Scripture is too convoluted to understand, when throughout the centuries, we have Saints, Fathers and Popes who explain otherwise, but which you are too proud to accept. Scripture is not only reliable but it is written for our understanding. It is infallible in its presentation and accuracy and certainly does not contradict reality.
-
No, the geocentric model never included the globe. Prove that. You say that, but you cannot prove that. You assume that.
Just read the Wikipedia article on geocentric model (or any reference work you consider more reliable.) It is common knowledge.
Ancient Greek, ancient Roman and medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth). It is not the same as the older flat Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth) model implied in some mythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology).[n 1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-4)[n 2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-6)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-7) The ancient Jєωιѕн Babylonian uranography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_cartography) pictured a flat Earth with a dome-shaped, rigid canopy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_(building)) called the firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) placed over it (רקיע- rāqîa').[n 3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-9)[n 4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-11)[n 5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-13)[n 6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-15)[n 7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-17)[n 8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-19) However, the ancient Greeks believed that the motions of the planets were circular and not elliptical, a view that was not challenged in Western culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture) until the 17th century through the synthesis of theories by Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus)and Kepler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler).
The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system) were used to prepare astrological and astronomical charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern) age, but from the late 16th century onward, it was gradually superseded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories#Superseded_astronomical_and_cosmological_theories) by the Heliocentric model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism) of Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus), Galileo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei) and Kepler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler). There was much resistance to the transition between these two theories. Christian theologians were reluctant to reject a theory that agreed with Bible passages (e.g. "Sun, stand you still upon Gibeon", Joshua 10:12 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0610.htm#12)). Others felt a new, unknown theory could not subvert an accepted consensus for geocentrism.
When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. The Ptolemaic model (which specifies a spherical earth) was taught at Catholic universities.
Note that this is the model of geocentrism in competition with the heliocentrism of Galileo. Virtually everyone believed in a globe earth at this time.
-
Just read the Wikipedia article on geocentric model (or any reference work you consider more reliable.) It is common knowledge.
When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. The Ptolemaic model (which specifies a spherical earth) was taught at Catholic universities.
Note that this is the model of geocentrism in competition with the heliocentrism of Galileo. Virtually everyone believed in a globe earth at this time.
NO THEY DID NOT!
-
Just read the Wikipedia article on geocentric model (or any reference work you consider more reliable.) It is common knowledge.
When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. The Ptolemaic model (which specifies a spherical earth) was taught at Catholic universities.
Note that this is the model of geocentrism in competition with the heliocentrism of Galileo. Virtually everyone believed in a globe earth at this time.
Philosophers usually combined the two? Philosophers? What philosophers? Pagan ones? Pythagoras? Erostothanes? Plato? Who cares what pagans taught? You want to celebrate how strange philosophies of the pagans entered the universities against the efforts of the Church! How everyone believed them! The Catholic Church was fighting this garbage back in Enoch's time, and again, it surfaced in the 200's and 300's, then again quite specifically in the year 550 when Cosmas wrote his book about the pagan notions of spherical earth and how stupid and baseless their premise was. Cosmas proceeded to show that by Ancients like Moses, Enoch and the Fathers of the Church along with Scripture, that the Church already held the flat geocentric earth and that the sphere was perfidious pagan fantasy. That was back in 550! In other words, your philosophers were pushing and cramming their lies down the throats of Catholics for centuries and you suggest that we ought to accept their philosophy because the people had already accepted the globe? And because Ptolemy integrated the globe into his model? And that when the Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633, She didn't intend to include the heliocentric globe? Seriously? I'm not sure what kind of smoke you're toking, but history and Tradition prove over and over again that the pagan globe cosmogony has been a thorn in the Church's side from the beginning. And now that modern science celebrates their victory over the Church and Catholic teaching with NASA's endless blue marble cgi fakery, you and your people finally have your win! Well, party on. You get a globe.
-
By and by, the Catholic Church may not have been the official name of the Church in Enoch's time, but we worship the same God. And God never changes.
-
.
Quote from: Jaynek on Today at 07:35:59 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589867/#msg589867)
Just read the Wikipedia article on geocentric model (or any reference work you consider more reliable.) It is common knowledge.
When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. The Ptolemaic model (which specifies a spherical earth) was taught at Catholic universities.
Note that this is the model of geocentrism in competition with the heliocentrism of Galileo. Virtually everyone believed in a globe earth at this time.
.
Philosophers usually combined the two? Philosophers? What philosophers? Pagan ones? Pythagoras? Erostothanes? Plato? Who cares what pagans taught?
.
Perhaps you're unaware that St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church) referred to Aristotle (a pagan philosopher) as "the Philosopher."
.
The same Angelic Doctor refers to St. Paul as "the Apostle." It is a term of honor and appreciation.
.
Aristotle is widely thought to be the most intelligent man in the history of the world. He traveled far and studied much and devoted the greater part of his life to thinking and teaching. He used simple observations of the sun, moon and stars to conclude not only that the earth is spherical, but he closely estimated its size in terms of diameter. He did all this with very simple and primitive tools, and all of his observations have been repeated in our own time. Anyone can do them.
.
I have offered you the chance to try some of them but you stubbornly refuse and resort to contrary statements without basis all the while claiming you have basis. But you don't provide any evidence of basis. Then you claim you have provided evidence even while you cannot describe the evidence you claim to have provided.
.
-
.
Philosophers usually combined the two? Philosophers? What philosophers? Pagan ones? Pythagoras? Erostothanes? Plato? Who cares what pagans taught?
.
Perhaps you're unaware that St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church) referred to Aristotle (a pagan philosopher) as "the Philosopher."
.
The same Angelic Doctor refers to St. Paul as "the Apostle." It is a term of honor and appreciation.
.
Aristotle is widely thought to be the most intelligent man in the history of the world. He traveled far and studied much and devoted the greater part of his life to thinking and teaching. He used simple observations of the sun, moon and stars to conclude not only that the earth is spherical, but he closely estimated its size in terms of diameter. He did all this with very simple and primitive tools, and all of his observations have been repeated in our own time. Anyone can do them.
.
I have offered you the chance to try some of them but you stubbornly refuse and resort to contrary statements without basis all the while claiming you have basis. But you don't provide any evidence of basis. Then you claim you have provided evidence even while you cannot describe the evidence you claim to have provided.
.
The horizontal horizon is Infallible.
-
I am not saying anything, just pointing out that when Our Lady designed her Miraculous Medal she wanted the image shown as her standing on a globe, she even held a globe in her hand if you research the story.
Now looking at these more modern Vatican II medals notice how they are slowly removing the globe, to go along with the One World Religion teaching of the earth as a novel shape.
Past and present Vatican II Medals (https://www.google.com/search?q=Miraculous+Medal&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgh8Ht0uLYAhVR1GMKHb8UAaoQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=633#imgrc=BLagqqKHMLk3IM:)
I feel certain if the earth was flat, Our Lady would have known this and left the curve out as not to offend.
.
It's interesting to see how so many of the French medals and images have a distinct globe under Our Lady's feet.
.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvkXEvFFrckElcQj-EbTJCsz-IXOA0c3Y1Q7EYYb9mj7iiSaaY) (http://www.trinity.la/twomedal.gif)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG87fVk63JWW1aD_wDEQBSO9SmOv7KOV-VR4bVjyYKexcUK750JQ)
.
Explanation of the medal; The Front of the medal
On the front of the medal we see Mary standing with her heel crushing the head of the serpent Satan who is on top of the world. Mary is showing us that she is the immaculate "New Eve" who was never conquered by satan to sin.
http://www.trinity.la/medal.htm
.
(http://www.trinity.la/CatherinebeneathOurLady.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MyvFSYcQ-FY/TP0lFvmWE2I/AAAAAAAAAOw/74ZcxjMAdZE/s1600/viergedglobe2.gif)
.
If the "flatness" of Earth was so much on the mind of Catholics as flat-earthers claim, why is there no record of St. Catherine Laboure or Bernadette Soubrious, or Melanie Calvat or Maximin Gerard or the Fatima children ASKING Our Lady about the shape of the earth?
.
-
.
It's interesting to see how so many of the French medals and images have a distinct globe under Our Lady's feet.
.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvkXEvFFrckElcQj-EbTJCsz-IXOA0c3Y1Q7EYYb9mj7iiSaaY) (http://www.trinity.la/twomedal.gif)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG87fVk63JWW1aD_wDEQBSO9SmOv7KOV-VR4bVjyYKexcUK750JQ)
.
Explanation of the medal; The Front of the medal
On the front of the medal we see Mary standing with her heel crushing the head of the serpent Satan who is on top of the world. Mary is showing us that she is the immaculate "New Eve" who was never conquered by satan to sin.
http://www.trinity.la/medal.htm
.
(http://www.trinity.la/CatherinebeneathOurLady.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MyvFSYcQ-FY/TP0lFvmWE2I/AAAAAAAAAOw/74ZcxjMAdZE/s1600/viergedglobe2.gif)
.
All of these represent the dome.
-
.
It's interesting to see how so many of the French medals and images have a distinct globe under Our Lady's feet.
.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvkXEvFFrckElcQj-EbTJCsz-IXOA0c3Y1Q7EYYb9mj7iiSaaY) (http://www.trinity.la/twomedal.gif)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG87fVk63JWW1aD_wDEQBSO9SmOv7KOV-VR4bVjyYKexcUK750JQ)
.
Explanation of the medal; The Front of the medal
On the front of the medal we see Mary standing with her heel crushing the head of the serpent Satan who is on top of the world. Mary is showing us that she is the immaculate "New Eve" who was never conquered by satan to sin.
http://www.trinity.la/medal.htm
.
(http://www.trinity.la/CatherinebeneathOurLady.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MyvFSYcQ-FY/TP0lFvmWE2I/AAAAAAAAAOw/74ZcxjMAdZE/s1600/viergedglobe2.gif)
.
If the "flatness" of Earth was so much on the mind of Catholics as flat-earthers claim, why is there no record of St. Catherine Laboure or Bernadette Soubrious, or Melanie Calvat or Maximin Gerard or the Fatima children ASKING Our Lady about the shape of the earth?
.
Because they didn't think about earth being a globe. The mere thought of it is ludicrous. People don't live on the outside of a ball. The Church never entertained the notion that earth was a ball. Why bother wondering about the obvious depiction of what is easily observed as the dome?
-
All of these represent the dome.
.
Why would Our Lady stand outside your "dome" when what matters to us is what would be inside?
.
How does satan (a snake) survive outside the "dome" where there is no air and as you claim, it's all water (since the "dome" separates the waters beyond it) and snakes are not able to breathe submerged in water?
.
Why would Our Lady want to be all under water, when her gown doesn't show that it's wet?
.
How does this "dome" exist in a vision right in the sanctuary of an altar when there is no water all around the altar?
.
-
.
It's interesting to see how so many of the French medals and images have a distinct globe under Our Lady's feet.
.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvkXEvFFrckElcQj-EbTJCsz-IXOA0c3Y1Q7EYYb9mj7iiSaaY) (http://www.trinity.la/twomedal.gif)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG87fVk63JWW1aD_wDEQBSO9SmOv7KOV-VR4bVjyYKexcUK750JQ)
.
Explanation of the medal; The Front of the medal
On the front of the medal we see Mary standing with her heel crushing the head of the serpent Satan who is on top of the world. Mary is showing us that she is the immaculate "New Eve" who was never conquered by satan to sin.
http://www.trinity.la/medal.htm
.
(http://www.trinity.la/CatherinebeneathOurLady.jpg)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MyvFSYcQ-FY/TP0lFvmWE2I/AAAAAAAAAOw/74ZcxjMAdZE/s1600/viergedglobe2.gif)
.
If the "flatness" of Earth was so much on the mind of Catholics as flat-earthers claim, why is there no record of St. Catherine Laboure or Bernadette Soubrious, or Melanie Calvat or Maximin Gerard or the Fatima children ASKING Our Lady about the shape of the earth?
.
And you're right that the medal is telling us that Mary is Immaculate. That is the point of the medal. No one is arguing that. But there's no reason to insist that a Catholic medal represents a pagan ideal when it all comes together as one considers the Scriptural description of the dome.
-
Because they didn't think about earth being a globe. The mere thought of it is ludicrous. People don't live on the outside of a ball. The Church never entertained the notion that earth was a ball. Why bother wondering about the obvious depiction of what is easily observed as the dome?
.
At the time the whole world was talking about the earth as a globe. Why wouldn't that have bothered all these visionaries?
.
-
And you're right that the medal is telling us that Mary is Immaculate. That is the point of the medal. No one is arguing that. But there's no reason to insist that a Catholic medal represents a pagan ideal when it all comes together as one considers the Scriptural description of the dome.
.
Let's take a walk and ask 100 people of your choosing what that thing is Our Lady is standing on.
.
-
.
Why would Our Lady stand outside your "dome" when what matters to us is what would be inside?
Because Our Lady is in heaven. She is beyond the veil (as the Father's describe it) within the Holy of Holies, and because She is the Gate of Heaven.
.
How does satan (a snake) survive outside the "dome" where there is no air and as you claim, it's all water (since the "dome" separates the waters beyond it) and snakes are not able to breathe submerged in water?
The snake is under Our Lady's feet for obvious reasons. As Satan, he doesn't need air.
.
Why would Our Lady want to be all under water, when her gown doesn't show that it's wet?
Heaven is above the water and Mary is shown in heaven because She is there.
.
How does this "dome" exist in a vision right in the sanctuary of an altar when there is no water all around the altar?
The altar is in heaven.
Actually, Neil. This is the most eloquent and reasonable you've been about this subject. Because you asked such incredibly insightful questions, questions that made me wonder why myself, and stated them without malice, I'm going to apologize to you for not being very nice.
.
-
.
Let's take a walk and ask 100 people of your choosing what that thing is Our Lady is standing on.
.
Oh, believe me, you'd win.
-
.
At the time the whole world was talking about the earth as a globe. Why wouldn't that have bothered all these visionaries?
.
Good question. I suspect the simple nature of the people who had Faith didn't wonder at such things, and yet, even the medal can be said to represent the way things truly are.
-
Just in case somebody missed it.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
.
Wrong. Again, again, and again.
It's against the forum rules to post the same thing over and over, especially when it's false.
Changing the font size doesn't make any difference. It's still the same thing.
And it's incorrect.
.
-
Good question. I suspect the simple nature of the people who had Faith didn't wonder at such things, and yet, even the medal can be said to represent the way things truly are.
.
You're going to need a better answer than that.
.
-
post from happenby
Actually, Neil. This is the most eloquent and reasonable you've been about this subject. Because you asked such incredibly insightful questions, questions that made me wonder why myself, and stated them without malice, I'm going to apologize to you for not being very nice.
.
Thank you Our Lady Mother of God for blessing happenby with this apology, just your name brings out good in all of us.
Neil brought out a great thought if it is so important to believe the world is flat. Why didn't she mention it at least once in all her apparitions to the seers? Why didn't she hold a flat earth to represent creation and all of mankind?
Upthumb reply #137 I did!
-
Church described the apparition, not I, Globe means curve, she is standing on a globe, see the curve! She is holding a globe, not a frisbee. Did you know that the Church prior to Vatican II had to approve religious art that hung in churches? Have you ever seen an image of Christ holding a frisbee, no but you have seen many images of Christ holding a globe. Approved art.
Readers pay no mind to the detractors search yourself what the One World Religion will be like. New Age, Flat-earthers and
Islamic (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605089/Pope-embraces-grand-imam-historic-Vatican-meeting-bid-bring-Catholic-Muslim-churches-together.html) These people are here to see how easy it will be to get Traditional Catholics to accept one of their false ideas.
Don't fall for it, pray to the Blessed Mother for that special grace to know the truth, love the truth and accept the truth.
Wear your miraculous medal, get it blessed and wear it, put one on all your children.
Don't pay attention to the shills here pretending they care for you, see their charity! :facepalm:
.
This is a great observation. Thank you, MyrnaM.
.
NewAge practitioners like the flat-earth model because being gnostics, they appreciate gnosticism.
.
Mohammedans leaders teach the earth is flat so that when they face Mecca every day it's easier for them to figure out which way to face toward Mecca. On a globe earth they could be facing opposite directions or just about any direction when they're far away from Mecca, like in the South Pacific or South America.
.
And the One World Religion under the United Nations emblem uses the flat-earth model as their emblem and flag.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FRi5Rtxl0EHs%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=4afb9aaaf30202668b41c7d572efa04c)
.
Notice that Australia is the same size as Africa in length, and Asia is no bigger than South America.
.
-
Thank you Our Lady Mother of God for blessing happenby with this apology, just your name brings out good in all of us.
Neil brought out a great thought if it is so important to believe the world is flat. Why didn't she mention it at least once in all her apparitions to the seers? Why didn't she hold a flat earth to represent creation and all of mankind?
Upthumb reply #137 I did!
.
I have an answer to the question.
.
-
Can't wait to read it!
However, this old grandma is going to sleep now. :sleep:
Will read it tomorrow.
-
.
You're going to need a better answer than that.
.
I don't have one.
-
.
Wrong. Again, again, and again.
It's against the forum rules to post the same thing over and over, especially when it's false.
Changing the font size doesn't make any difference. It's still the same thing.
And it's incorrect.
.
God created the flat earth. The horizontal horizon is Infallible.
-
God created the flat earth. The horizontal horizon is Infallible.
.
God created the earth a globe. The horizon has curvature for all to see.
You are wrong, again, again and again.
.
-
.
God created the earth a globe. The horizon has curvature for all to see.
You are wrong, again, again and again.
.
(https://i.imgur.com/3nlDhCY.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/UoaTTho.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/SPy3Ych.png)
-
Philosophers usually combined the two? Philosophers? What philosophers? Pagan ones? Pythagoras? Erostothanes? Plato? Who cares what pagans taught? You want to celebrate how strange philosophies of the pagans entered the universities against the efforts of the Church! How everyone believed them!
What a strange response to a post in which I wrote, "When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. " St. Thomas believed in a globe earth. This has been discussed on this forum before.
None of the people you list are medieval philosophers. They are from the classical period. There were no efforts from the Church to keep the Ptolemaic model out of the universities. It was already the dominant understanding throughout Christendom well before the establishment of universities. You could find this information in many places. Just look up "geocentrism" or "Ptolemaic model". Your ideas of what happened are pure fantasy.
The strength of the Ptolemaic model was its predictive ability. People knew in advance positions of the moon and stars. Catholics throughout Christendom accepted it because it worked. They judged physical reality with the evidence of their senses, not by searching for clues in the figurative language of Scripture.
quote from Happenby:
The Catholic Church was fighting this garbage back in Enoch's time, and again, it surfaced in the 200's and 300's, then again quite specifically in the year 550 when Cosmas wrote his book about the pagan notions of spherical earth and how stupid and baseless their premise was. Cosmas proceeded to show that by Ancients like Moses, Enoch and the Fathers of the Church along with Scripture, that the Church already held the flat geocentric earth and that the sphere was perfidious pagan fantasy. That was back in 550! In other words, your philosophers were pushing and cramming their lies down the throats of Catholics for centuries and you suggest that we ought to accept their philosophy because the people had already accepted the globe? And because Ptolemy integrated the globe into his model? And that when the Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633, She didn't intend to include the heliocentric globe? Seriously? I'm not sure what kind of smoke you're toking, but history and Tradition prove over and over again that the pagan globe cosmogony has been a thorn in the Church's side from the beginning. And now that modern science celebrates their victory over the Church and Catholic teaching with NASA's endless blue marble cgi fakery, you and your people finally have your win! Well, party on. You get a globe.
Enoch is a non-canonical work. Cosmas holds little significance (and lived long before the establishment of universities.) Wikipedia, for example, says:
A major feature of his Topographia is Cosmas' worldview that the world is flat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth), and that the heavens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky) form the shape of a box with a curved lid. He was scornful of Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabernacle), the house of worship described to Moses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses) by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus) from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth) had been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes#cite_note-7) Cosmas's view was never influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philoponus), disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era.[2]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes#cite_note-Brit-2)
David C. Lindberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Lindberg) asserts: "Cosmas was not particularly influential in Byzantium, but he is important for us because he has been commonly used to buttress the claim that all (or most) medieval people believed they lived on a flat earth. This claim...is totally false. Cosmas is, in fact, the only medieval European known to have defended a flat earth cosmology, whereas it is safe to assume that all educated Western Europeans (and almost one hundred percent of educated Byzantines), as well as sailors and travelers, believed in the earth's sphericity."[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes#cite_note-8)
It would have been extremely difficult to find an educated Catholic who believed in a flat earth in 1633. A competition existed between the Ptolemaic and Copernican models and the Church (with good reason) took the side of the Ptolemaic model. But both models held that the earth is a globe. This point was never in question.
There is no evidence to support your understanding of history.
-
The strength of the Ptolemaic model was its predictive ability. People knew in advance positions of the moon and stars. Catholics throughout Christendom accepted it because it worked.
Indeed, modern Planetariums use Ptolemaic/geocentric math to determine the positions of the stars and planets.
http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.htm
As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle.
-
What a strange response to a post in which I wrote, "When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. " St. Thomas believed in a globe earth. This has been discussed on this forum before.
None of the people you list are medieval philosophers. They are from the classical period. There were no efforts from the Church to keep the Ptolemaic model out of the universities. It was already the dominant understanding throughout Christendom well before the establishment of universities. You could find this information in many places. Just look up "geocentrism" or "Ptolemaic model". Your ideas of what happened are pure fantasy.
The strength of the Ptolemaic model was its predictive ability. People knew in advance positions of the moon and stars. Catholics throughout Christendom accepted it because it worked. They judged physical reality with the evidence of their senses, not by searching for clues in the figurative language of Scripture.
Enoch is a non-canonical work. Cosmas holds little significance (and lived long before the establishment of universities.) Wikipedia, for example, says:
It would have been extremely difficult to find an educated Catholic who believed in a flat earth in 1633. A competition existed between the Ptolemaic and Copernican models and the Church (with good reason) took the side of the Ptolemaic model. But both models held that the earth is a globe. This point was never in question.
There is no evidence to support your understanding of history.
We already proved it all to you ; you are just stubbornly obstinate.
-
A competition existed between the Ptolemaic and Copernican models and the Church (with good reason) took the side of the Ptolemaic model. But both models held that the earth is a globe. This point was never in question.
Since you say that the Church took the side of the Ptolemaic model, which held that the earth is a globe, and that this point was never in question, then why has the Church NEVER said that the earth is a globe, or said that we must believe it?
You mistakenly believe that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe.
-
Since you say that the Church took the side of the Ptolemaic model, which held that the earth is a globe, and that this point was never in question, then why has the Church NEVER said that the earth is a globe, or said that we must believe it?
You mistakenly believe that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe.
So you don't believe Our Lady belongs to the Church?
Why doesn't Catholic art show Christ holding a frisbee to represent His creation?
ANSWER
-
So you don't believe Our Lady belongs to the Church?
Why doesn't Catholic art show Christ holding a frisbee to represent His creation?
ANSWER
ANSWER
Where does the Church teach that private revelation is a part of Church doctrine? What Church teaching specifically says that the earth is a globe? What Catholic catechism or encyclopedia says that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe? ANSWER, Myrna.
-
What a strange response to a post in which I wrote, "When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. " St. Thomas believed in a globe earth. This has been discussed on this forum before.
None of the people you list are medieval philosophers. They are from the classical period. There were no efforts from the Church to keep the Ptolemaic model out of the universities. It was already the dominant understanding throughout Christendom well before the establishment of universities. You could find this information in many places. Just look up "geocentrism" or "Ptolemaic model". Your ideas of what happened are pure fantasy.
The strength of the Ptolemaic model was its predictive ability. People knew in advance positions of the moon and stars. Catholics throughout Christendom accepted it because it worked. They judged physical reality with the evidence of their senses, not by searching for clues in the figurative language of Scripture.
Enoch is a non-canonical work. Cosmas holds little significance (and lived long before the establishment of universities.) Wikipedia, for example, says:
It would have been extremely difficult to find an educated Catholic who believed in a flat earth in 1633. A competition existed between the Ptolemaic and Copernican models and the Church (with good reason) took the side of the Ptolemaic model. But both models held that the earth is a globe. This point was never in question.
There is no evidence to support your understanding of history.
Yea, people knew in advance positions of the moon and stars because the entire model is mathematical based, so when the model isn't working, adjust the numbers and get the result you want. Copernicus did this several times, as did most other astronomers of the cult. In fact, the numbers for the distance of the sun grew like Pinocchio's nose throughout the centuries until everyone decided to settle on 93 mil. Its a joke.
Who cares if Enoch is a non-canonical work. So is that the extent of your abilities? Dis the Godly authority for being non-canonical but promote the pagans and their theory? That'll get you everywhere out there, but I'm not stooping for you. You can keep your occult authorities and false models. The man who made earth into a ball, Nick Copernicus, defiled himself with occult practice, defiled the Catholic priesthood with mistresses, defiled the sciences with lies, but for the globalists, he's THE authority!? Naturally. These days a resume is a perquisite.
-
We already proved it all to you ; you are just stubbornly obstinate.
The only point you ever proved here is that you are an instrument of the One World Religion.
Perhaps unknowingly you are their instrument I would rather believe about you.
-
So you don't believe Our Lady belongs to the Church?
Why doesn't Catholic art show Christ holding a frisbee to represent His creation?
ANSWER
Fortunately, the Fathers of the Church have shown us that the literal interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.
-
ANSWER
Where does the Church teach that private revelation is a part of Church doctrine? What Church teaching specifically says that the earth is a globe?
It is an approved message with miraculous happenings to prove it is true, show me one supernatural event that the world is flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL4DPN2CIg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL4DPN2CIg)
-
Fortunately, the Fathers of the Church have shown us that the literal interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.
Only about the definition of the word "world" vs "earth".
-
It is an approved message with miraculous happenings to prove it is true, show me one supernatural event that the world is flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL4DPN2CIg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL4DPN2CIg)
Where does the Church teach that everything in an approved private revelation is a part of Church doctrine and teaching? And - where does the Church teach that the earth is a globe?
I'm not going to watch that video. It's not a part of official Church teaching.
I'm asking for Church teaching - I don't understand why you don't understand that. What Catholic encyclopedia teaches that the earth is a globe? What catechism teaches it?
-
Since you say that the Church took the side of the Ptolemaic model, which held that the earth is a globe, and that this point was never in question, then why has the Church NEVER said that the earth is a globe, or said that we must believe it?
Yesterday, Myrna posted excerpts from multiple encyclicals that refer to the earth as a globe https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589745/#msg589745 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589745/#msg589745)
She also showed that the Church approved an apparition in which the Blessed Virgin instructed a medal be made which showed her standing on a globe which represents the world.
While the Church does not explicitly teach that the earth is globe (not surprising since the Church rarely teaches about science) it is very clear that the Church does accept this to be true. How else could one explain the above facts?
Since it has no bearing on our salvation, there is no reason to expect the Church to teach that we must believe that the earth is a globe, but the fact is clearly taken for granted in official Church docuмents and the decision to accept the Miraculous Medal.
-
The Blessed Mother teaches it! PURE AND SIMPLE!
-
HAHA. Since when did you actually concern yourself with Church Doctrine?
Only when it suits her, as the Protestants take from the Catholic Church what they like and leave what they don't like.
-
Yea, people knew in advance positions of the moon and stars because the entire model is mathematical based, so when the model isn't working, adjust the numbers and get the result you want. Copernicus did this several times, as did most other astronomers of the cult. In fact, the numbers for the distance of the sun grew like Pinocchio's nose throughout the centuries until everyone decided to settle on 93 mil. Its a joke.
Who cares if Enoch is a non-canonical work. So is that the extent of your abilities? Dis the Godly authority for being non-canonical but promote the pagans and their theory? That'll get you everywhere out there, but I'm not stooping for you. You can keep your occult authorities and false models. The man who made earth into a ball, Nick Copernicus, defiled himself with occult practice, defiled the Catholic priesthood with mistresses, defiled the sciences with lies, but for the globalists, he's THE authority!? Naturally. These days a resume is a perquisite.
Ptolemy lived in the second century AD and developed the astronomical model that soon dominated the Western world. This geocentric model had a spherical earth. He wrote the definitive text on astronomy used in Catholic universities. Virtually no Catholics supported flat earth after the Patristic period. Even by the sixth century when Cosmas wrote, he was a rare exception to the consensus among Catholics that the earth is a globe.
Copernicus did not introduce the idea of a ball-shaped earth to Christendom which had already accepted this idea for many centuries as part of the Ptolemaic/Aristotlean model. Copernicus introduced heliocentrism.
Enoch is not an authority, godly or otherwise. That is why it matters that it is non-canonical. It tells us that Enoch has no authority.
-
Yesterday, Myrna posted excerpts from multiple encyclicals that refer to the earth as a globe https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589745/#msg589745 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589745/#msg589745)
She also showed that the Church approved an apparition in which the Blessed Virgin instructed a medal be made which showed her standing on a globe which represents the world.
While the Church does not explicitly teach that the earth is globe (not surprising since the Church rarely teaches about science) it is very clear that the Church does accept this to be true. How else could one explain the above facts?
Since it has no bearing on our salvation, there is no reason to expect the Church to teach that we must believe that the earth is a globe, but the fact is clearly taken for granted in official Church docuмents and the decision to accept the Miraculous Medal.
The apparition does not show that it is an actual globe of the earth. It isn't clear that it's a globe that is an actual land mass. Creation includes a flat earth which can have the appearance of a globe when the firmament is included. Private revelations are not a part of Church doctrine unless the Church says that it is. And there is no consensus that Our Lady actually referred to the earth as a globe.
Also, about those encyclicals that are supped to show that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe. The encyclical Sollicitudo Pastoralis from 1679 doesn't actually say that the earth is a globe, as Myrna has claimed. she has only shown the English translation. The term used to describe the earth, in the Latin version of the encyclical, uses the term "Orbem" to describe the earth, which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
I looked up the description of "Orbem" which the Latin version of the encyclical uses. The various uses and definitions of the term "Orbem" are as follows:
1. Circle, ring
2. circular motion
3. rotation
4. disc or disc shaped object
5. the earth, the world, the globe
The definition of Orbis terrarium, for example, is translated as "the whole, wide world."
So you see, Myrna is wrong to say that this one particular encycliacal teaches that the earth is a globe. The likely proper translation is that it simply means "world."
I'll have to look up and see what Latin term the other encyclicals use to describe the earth. I wasn't able to find a Latin version of the encyclical "Praedecessores Notros."
If the other encyclicals use the term "Orbem," then is does not follow that it means "globe" at all.
-
Ptolemy lived in the second century AD and developed the astronomical model that soon dominated the Western world. This geocentric model had a spherical earth. He wrote the definitive text on astronomy used in Catholic universities. Virtually no Catholics supported flat earth after the Patristic period. Even by the sixth century when Cosmas wrote, he was a rare exception to the consensus among Catholics that the earth is a globe.
Copernicus did not introduce the idea of a ball-shaped earth to Christendom which had already accepted this idea for many centuries as part of the Ptolemaic/Aristotlean model. Copernicus introduced heliocentrism.
Enoch is not an authority, godly or otherwise. That is why it matters that it is non-canonical. It tells us that Enoch has no authority.
We haven't forgotten you're even less an authority and your statements were obviously made in ignorance.
-
The apparition does not show that it is an actual globe of the earth. It isn't clear that it's a globe that is an actual land mass. Creation includes a flat earth which can have the appearance of a globe when the firmament is included. Private revelations are not a part of Church doctrine unless the Church says that it is. And there is no consensus that Our Lady actually referred to the earth as a globe.
Also, about those encyclicals that are supped to show that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe. The encyclical Sollicitudo Pastoralis from 1679 doesn't actually say that the earth is a globe, as Myrna has claimed. she has only shown the English translation. The term used to describe the earth, in the Latin version of the encyclical uses the term "Orbem" to describe the earth, which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
I looked up the description of "Orbem" which the Latin version uses. The various uses and definitions of the term "Orbem" are as follows:
1. Circle, ring
2. circular motion
3. rotation
4. disc or disc shaped object
5. the earth, the world, the globe
The definition of Orbis terrarium, for example, is ptranslated as "the whole, wide world."
So you see, Myrna is wrong to say that this one particular encycliacal teaches that the earth is a globe.
I'll have to look up and see what Latin term the other encyclicals use to describe the earth. I wasn't able to find a Latin version of the encyclical "Praedecessores Notros."
No, you see, Meg, they want to Pontificate about which they know nothing. Notice the ones who don't really engage the subject, but just drop pertinaciously contrary things, always attempting to sound like they are fully engaged, developing and redeveloping theory as they go, but missing the boat every time? Contrariness is lack of humility and such people literally have no capacity to learn. You've done an excellent job explaining but I don't think the contrarians can make heads or tails of it.
-
HAPPENBY,
The Book of Enoch says literally, that the giants were 3000 Ells in height. Now maybe the ell wasn't the same back then, but I looked it up and an "ell" is about 3.75 ft. That would make the giants around 11,250 ft. tall. Why don't we find any giant 11000ft. skeletons in the ground?
Update: I looked it up and it seems that an ell used to be about 18 inches. So that would make the Giants only about 4500 ft. tall. Not that this is more provable.
Yea, your source is junk. Get new.
-
The book of Enoch says that angels mated with human women and produced nephilim(giants). This is one of your authorities.
St. Thomas and St. Augustine both comment on this. You'd finally do yourself proud if you looked into it.
-
The apparition does not show that it is an actual globe of the earth. It isn't clear that it's a globe that is an actual land mass. Creation includes a flat earth which can have the appearance of a globe when the firmament is included. Private revelations are not a part of Church doctrine unless the Church says that it is. And there is no consensus that Our Lady actually referred to the earth as a globe.
Also, about those encyclicals that are supped to show that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe. The encyclical Sollicitudo Pastoralis from 1679 doesn't actually say that the earth is a globe, as Myrna has claimed. she has only shown the English translation. The term used to describe the earth, in the Latin version of the encyclical, uses the term "Orbem" to describe the earth, which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
I looked up the description of "Orbem" which the Latin version uses. The various uses and definitions of the term "Orbem" are as follows:
1. Circle, ring
2. circular motion
3. rotation
4. disc or disc shaped object
5. the earth, the world, the globe
The definition of Orbis terrarium, for example, is ptranslated as "the whole, wide world."
So you see, Myrna is wrong to say that this one particular encycliacal teaches that the earth is a globe.
I'll have to look up and see what Latin term the other encyclicals use to describe the earth. I wasn't able to find a Latin version of the encyclical "Praedecessores Notros."
Yes, there are a variety of ways to translate the word orbem. But the Church often provides official translations of her docuмents, for example, on the Vatican website. Official translations, using the word globe, show the Church's acceptance of the globe earth.
The Blessed Virgin herself said to use a globe to represent the world. I do not see how a Catholic could argue with that. But maybe it just seems that way to me because I wear a Miraculous Medal. Don't you accept it is genuine?
-
Yes, and the literal sense is the sense in which the author intends it. You do not understand the literal sense. The literal sense can be expressed in metaphorical or figurative language.
Now this is someone who hasn't a clue what he's saying. Why? Because words don't mean anything to him.
The literal sense is the literal sense, the style of language or kind of use doesn't make the literal sense false. Stop acting like the literal sense is somehow changed by the language used. It isn't.
God: I spread out the firmament like a tent over the land.
Person without a clue: "That line has to be metaphorical, or maybe figurative, um, so then, that must mean earth is a ball.
-
Yesterday, Myrna posted excerpts from multiple encyclicals that refer to the earth as a globe https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589745/#msg589745 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589745/#msg589745)
So I looked up another one of the encyclicals that Myrna posted. It's called, Ubi Arcani Dei Consilio, by Pope Pius Xl, written in 1922.
It appears that the English translation is wrong. The encyclical uses the terms "Orbis Terrarum" to describe the earth, which does not mean "Globe." It means..."The world, or the earth."
I'll keep looking up the various encyclicals that Myna posted. So far, it looks like she was wrong in believing that they teach that the earth is a globe. And anyway, they don't actually "teach" anything about the shape of the teach. They are referring to a description of the earth. And they do not use the term 'globe' so far, in the Latin encyclicals that I've looked up.
-
Which source are you talking about? How long is an ell?
I don't think I'm going to teach today.
-
Then post their comments. All I'm doing is following the Dogmatic Flatearthists tried and true method of interpreting their authoritative sources. It literally says the Angels mated with human women and produced 3000 ell tall Giants which taught us magic etc...
Go look it up. I'm not doing the legwork for people who trample it.
-
So I looked up another one of the encyclicals that Myrna posted. It's called, Ubi Arcani Dei Consilio, by Pope Pius Xl, written in 1922.
It appears that the English translation is wrong. The encyclical uses the terms "Orbis Terrarum" to describe the earth, which does not mean "Globe." It means..."The world, or the earth."
I'll keep looking up the various encyclicals that Myna posted. So far, it looks like she was wrong in believing that they teach that the earth is a globe. And anyway, they don't actually "teach" anything about the shape of the teach. They are referring to a description of the earth. And they do not use the term 'globe' so far, in the Latin encyclicals that I've looked up.
It happens every time. In their haste to look like they know something, they prove infallibly that they don't.
-
So I looked up another one of the encyclicals that Myrna posted. It's called, Ubi Arcani Dei Consilio, by Pope Pius Xl, written in 1922.
It appears that the English translation is wrong. The encyclical uses the terms "Orbis Terrarum" to describe the earth, which does not mean "Globe." It means..."The world, or the earth."
I'll keep looking up the various encyclicals that Myna posted. So far, it looks like she was wrong in believing that they teach that the earth is a globe. And anyway, they don't actually "teach" anything about the shape of the teach. They are referring to a description of the earth. And they do not use the term 'globe' so far, in the Latin encyclicals that I've looked up.
Finally she is starting to research herself. Good for you! :applause:
You will learn a lot when you open your eyes. You said ... " which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
So proud of you, I even gave you an upthumb.
-
Finally she is starting to research herself. Good for you! :applause:
You will learn a lot when you open your eyes. You said ... " which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
Well now, here we have another take on words and what they mean. When caught, try to look like you were saying the right thing all along.
-
It happens every time. In their haste to look like they know something, they prove infallibly that they don't.
Yes! And they assume that modern translations of Latin encyclicals are accurate. They obviously are not.
And what's even worse...they accuse us of being against Our Lady if we point out that it is not clear that Our Lady has said that the earth is a globe in the approved apparition, or that she is actually standing on a globe. They just want to believe it anyway, even though it isn't clear.
-
Well now, here we have another take on words and what they mean. When caught, try to look like you were saying the right thing all along.
They are dishonest.
-
Finally she is starting to research herself. Good for you! :applause:
You will learn a lot when you open your eyes. You said ... " which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
So proud of you, I even gave you an upthumb.
Coming from one who isn't sure what literal is, I wonder what that actually means.
-
It happens every time. In their haste to look like they know something, they prove infallibly that they don't.
Yes, it means the world His creations living on the earth, which is described as a globe. BTW Meg and happenby, I didn't write those words globe, in other words, I didn't describe or compose those encyclicals the Church did. They used the word "globe". Does that mean anything to you people? Why didn't they use the word filament your choice.
Why?
Because it is a lie, and the Church does not deceive, nor can it be deceived.
Pray your Act of Faith.
-
Coming from one who isn't sure what literal is, I wonder what that actually means.
Are you afraid she might discover the truth if she starts to research?
-
Yes, it means the world His creations living on the earth, which is described as a globe. BTW Meg and happenby, I didn't write those words globe, in other words, I didn't describe or compose those encyclicals the Church did. They used the word "globe". Does that mean anything to you people? Why didn't they use the word filament your choice.
Why?
Because it is a lie, and the Church does not deceive, nor can it be deceived.
Pray your Act of Faith.
The original Latin encyclicals do not use the term "Globe." What part of that do you not understand?
-
Yes! And they assume that modern translations of Latin encyclicals are accurate. They obviously are not.
And what's even worse...they accuse us of being against Our Lady if we point out that it is not clear that Our Lady has said that the earth is a globe in the approved apparition, or that she is actually standing on a globe. They just want to believe it anyway, even though it isn't clear.
Why didn't Our Lady hold into her hands a frisbee like shape? Are you really saying she is wrong also. No, I don't believe you would go that far in your thinking.
The answer is the shape of the earth is a globe, and it represents all of creation, not just France, was her message.
-
They are dishonest.
Yes, par for the course. Circular reasoning. They don't deal with reality, they live on a globe, where they walk upside down and don't know it. Their level is curved. Their up is down. For me, seeing your posts is like catching a glimpse of another boat on a gloomy sea. The lights are warm and comforting. Keep those flags a flyin!
-
Yes, par for the course. Circular reasoning. They don't deal with reality, they live on a globe, where they walk upside down and don't know it. Their level is curved. Their up is down. For me, seeing your posts is like catching a glimpse of another boat on a gloomy sea. The lights are warm and comforting. Keep those flags a flyin!
I am not a scientist so this might sound silly. If the round earth is in space who can say what is up and what is down?
-
Yes, par for the course. Circular reasoning. They don't deal with reality, they live on a globe, where they walk upside down and don't know it. Their level is curved. Their up is down. For me, seeing your posts is like catching a glimpse of another boat on a gloomy sea. The lights are warm and comforting. Keep those flags a flyin!
Thanks. As you say, since they don't deal with reality, and they refuse to see it even when it is pointed out to them, they refer to the same things over and over again, hoping that we'll accept their non-reality. We cannot, of course, accept the non-reality of the pagan globe-earth model. And if you add their lack of integrity, then it makes it even more difficult to debate with them.
-
We haven't forgotten you're even less an authority and your statements were obviously made in ignorance.
Since you only accept authorities (and non-authorities) who agree with you, it does not make much difference how much authority I have.
My statements agree with what any general reference work would say about the Ptolemaic model (such as those I already quoted in earlier posts.) Look it up for yourself.
-
Yes, it means the world His creations living on the earth, which is described as a globe. BTW Meg and happenby, I didn't write those words globe, in other words, I didn't describe or compose those encyclicals the Church did. They used the word "globe". Does that mean anything to you people? Why didn't they use the word filament your choice.
Why?
Because it is a lie, and the Church does not deceive, nor can it be deceived.
Pray your Act of Faith.
Myrna, you said: "They use the word "globe". Does that mean anything to you people?"
*THIS* from someone who berates the literal sense of Scripture, yet you insist your words must be taken literally! :boxer:
-
Since you only accept authorities (and non-authorities) who agree with you, it does not make much difference how much authority I have.
My statements agree with what any general reference work would say about the Ptolemaic model (such as those I already quoted in earlier posts.) Look it up for yourself.
It just so happens all my authorities are Catholic, and all yours are pagan. That means something. Look it up.
-
So I looked up another one of the encyclicals that Myrna posted. It's called, Ubi Arcani Dei Consilio, by Pope Pius Xl, written in 1922.
It appears that the English translation is wrong. The encyclical uses the terms "Orbis Terrarum" to describe the earth, which does not mean "Globe." It means..."The world, or the earth."
I'll keep looking up the various encyclicals that Myna posted. So far, it looks like she was wrong in believing that they teach that the earth is a globe. And anyway, they don't actually "teach" anything about the shape of the teach. They are referring to a description of the earth. And they do not use the term 'globe' so far, in the Latin encyclicals that I've looked up.
Cassell's Latin Dictionary gives 3 possible Latin translations for "globe": globus, sphera and orbis terrarum (terrae).
The docuмents quoted by Myrna used a perfectly legitimate translation. What makes you think you know enough about Latin to judge the work of a professional translator?
-
It just so happens all my authorities are Catholic, and all yours are pagan. That means something. Look it up.
Enoch is not Catholic.
-
I am not a scientist so this might sound silly. If the round earth is in space who can say what is up and what is down?
Oh my! Did she just really say that?
-
And what's even worse...they accuse us of being against Our Lady if we point out that it is not clear that Our Lady has said that the earth is a globe in the approved apparition, or that she is actually standing on a globe. They just want to believe it anyway, even though it isn't clear.
Kind of like you accuse people of being against Scripture when people disagree with your interpretations of it.
Only Our Lady was not using figurative language.
-
I am not a scientist so this might sound silly. If the round earth is in space who can say what is up and what is down?
It is not silly at all, but don't expect the flat earthers to understand the principle involved.
-
Cassell's Latin Dictionary gives 3 possible Latin translations for "globe": globus, sphera and orbis terrarum (terrae).
The docuмents quoted by Myrna used a perfectly legitimate translation. What makes you think you know enough about Latin to judge the work of a professional translator?
There is a word for sphere in Latin. Look it up.
-
Oh my! Did she just really say that?
Yes, I did. Can you answer, in space where is up and where is down in the eyes of God?
Since you seem to believe we are living upside down, where is down?
Answer since you seem to know the answer.
-
The original Latin encyclicals do not use the term "Globe." What part of that do you not understand?
Because "globe" is an English word. They use a Latin words that are normally translated "globe".
-
It is not silly at all, but don't expect the flat earthers to understand the principle involved.
You made the point flat earthers are saying of globers. Thank you.
-
Where does the Church teach that everything in an approved private revelation is a part of Church doctrine and teaching? And - where does the Church teach that the earth is a globe?
I'm not going to watch that video. It's not a part of official Church teaching.
I'm asking for Church teaching - I don't understand why you don't understand that. What Catholic encyclopedia teaches that the earth is a globe? What catechism teaches it?
The Blessed Mother showed us the shape of the earth.
The Church has not condemned this vision.
Read all about it! Or look it up yourself
June 3, 1905 marks the day that Pope Pius X formally recognized associations that had been formed for promoting the devotion popularly known as the Miraculous Medal… In order to spread devotion to Mary as our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, an association was formed shortly after the first medals were distributed. The Association was established at the motherhouse of the Congregation of the Mission in Paris. Gradually, other associations were established elsewhere in the world. Pope Pius X recognized these associations in 1905 and approved a charter in 1909.
-
You made the point flat earthers are saying of globers. Thank you.
So you can't answer the question of where in the eyes of God is up or down in space?
-
Yes, I did. Can you answer, in space where is up and where is down in the eyes of God?
Since you seem to believe we are living upside down, where is down?
Answer since you seem to know the answer.
There is no space as in outer space. There is the sky; above which is the firmament. Above that is heaven. Up is up. God is above. On a globe, there is no up. There is no down. Nothing is actually true on a globe. In fact, on a globe, God is sometimes below. My, oh my, what a concept! No wonder you don't know which end is up! You live on a globe.
-
There is no space as in outer space. There is the sky; above which is the firmament. Above that is heaven. Up is up. God is above. On a globe, there is no up. There is no down. Nothing is actually true on a globe. In fact, on a globe, God is sometimes below. My, oh my, what a concept! No wonder you don't know which end is up! You live on a globe.
Sounds like you live on another planet! (kidding) :jester:
-
Sounds like you live on another planet! (kidding) :jester:
Ha ha. Let's not forget, *you* are the one that lives on a planet.
-
I forgot, this is where you live. BTW I just noticed the backdrop of this image is the same symbol of the One World Religion that Neil posted a few pages ago.
BEWARE! Don't take a cruise you might fall off and go down, down upside down.
-
I forgot, this is where you live. BTW I just noticed the backdrop of this image is the same symbol of the One World Religion that Neil posted a few pages ago.
BEWARE! Don't take a cruise you might fall off and go down, down upside down.
-
Because "globe" is an English word. They use a Latin words that are normally translated "globe".
Translated in modern times to mean "globe."
Latin is the official language of the ROMAN Catholic Church. There is no precise term for "globe earth" in Latin. So they have to graft a definition onto Latin, which has never had a term for "globe earth." Do you see what I'm saying?
I don't know much about the pagan culture in which Latin was first developed and used, and then later adopted by the Church. I have to assume that it was a pagan culture that did not believe in a globe earth.
The modernists, for example, must have a difficult time of it, in trying to conform the Latin Language to modern innovations. Gullible modern Catholics will believe that the modernists are accurate in conforming modern beliefs with Latin. In other words, they trust the modernists.
-
Translated in modern times to mean "globe."
Latin is the official language of the ROMAN Catholic Church. There is no precise term for "globe earth" in Latin. So they have to graft a definition onto Latin, which has never had a term for "globe earth." Do you see what I'm saying?
I don't know much about the pagan culture in which Latin was first developed and used, and then later adopted by the Church. I have to assume that it was a pagan culture that did not believe in a globe earth.
The modernists, for example, must have a difficult time of it, in trying to conform the Latin Language to modern innovations.
The classical period Romans, in general, did believe in a globe earth. They followed Aristotle and the Greek tradition of globe earth models. Pliny writing in the first century AD, not only said the earth was a globe, but that everyone agreed on this.
For them the term orbis terrarum was figure of speech for referring to the whole world, just as saying "the globe" in English can be a way to refer to the whole world. Usually, the connotation does not concern the shape but that the entire world is included. All the encyclicals containing the expression orbis terrarum which Myrna quoted were written when Catholics believed that the earth is spherical, so "globe" is a very good translation for the Latin.
Here is an example in which "globe" is the translation of orbis terrarum that makes the most sense. Saint Bede, a Doctor of the Church, who also believed the earth is a sphere, in 725 wrote:
Causa autem inaequalitatis eorundem dierum terrae rotunditas est; neque enim frustra et in scripturae divinae et in communium literarum paginis orbis terrae vocatur.
The cause of the inequality [in length] of these days is the roundness of the earth; for it is not in vain that, both in Divine Scripture and in the pages of common literature it [the earth] is called the globe.
-
The classical period Romans, in general, did believe in a globe earth. They followed Aristotle and the Greek tradition of globe earth models. Pliny writing in the first century AD, not only said the earth was a globe, but that everyone agreed on this.
For them the term orbis terrarum was figure of speech for referring to the whole world, just as saying "the globe" in English can be a way to refer to the whole world. Usually, the connotation does not concern the shape but that the entire world is included. All the encyclicals containing the expression orbis terrarum which Myrna quoted were written when Catholics believed that the earth is spherical, so "globe" is a very good translation for the Latin.
Here is an example in which "globe" is the translation of orbis terrarum that makes the most sense. Saint Bede, a Doctor of the Church, who also believed the earth is a sphere, in 725 wrote:
Causa autem inaequalitatis eorundem dierum terrae rotunditas est; neque enim frustra et in scripturae divinae et in communium literarum paginis orbis terrae vocatur.
The cause of the inequality [in length] of these days is the roundness of the earth; for it is not in vain that, both in Divine Scripture and in the pages of common literature it [the earth] is called the globe.
The Latin language does not have terms to describe a globe earth, regardless of whether or not a Catholic chooses to proclaim as such.
-
The Latin language does not have terms to describe a globe earth, regardless of whether or not a Catholic chooses to proclaim as such.
You are responding to a post in which I quoted St. Bede in Latin explicitly teaching that the earth is a globe. Obviously Latin has terms to do this and St. Bede used some of them in that passage.
And I just wrote that, unlike your assumption, the Romans did believe in a globe earth. Obviously they were able to express this in their own language.
It makes no sense to respond by asserting that the Latin language does not have terms to describe a globe earth.
-
You are responding to a post in which I quoted St. Bede in Latin explicitly teaching that the earth is a globe. Obviously Latin has terms to do this and St. Bede used some of them in that passage.
And I just wrote that, unlike your assumption, the Romans did believe in a globe earth. Obviously they were able to express this in their own language.
It makes no sense to respond by asserting that the Latin language does not have terms to describe a globe earth.
I don't have to respond to everything you proclaim.
All of the possible definitions of 'Orbis'
1. round
2. sphere
3. circle
4. disk
Do you understand that there is no precise term for "globe?"
Possible definitions for 'Terrae':
1. Land
2. World
-
Just read the Wikipedia article on geocentric model (or any reference work you consider more reliable.) It is common knowledge.
When it says "medieval philosophers usually combined the geocentric model with a spherical earth" it is talking about Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas. The Ptolemaic model (which specifies a spherical earth) was taught at Catholic universities.
Note that this is the model of geocentrism in competition with the heliocentrism of Galileo. Virtually everyone believed in a globe earth at this time.
Thank you for pointing out the Church erroneously teaching the pagan Ptolemaic (a pagan) globe earth model.
The Church was wrong then, just as it is wrong now in its teaching of heliocentrism.
-
Where does the Church teach that everything in an approved private revelation is a part of Church doctrine and teaching? And - where does the Church teach that the earth is a globe?
I'm not going to watch that video. It's not a part of official Church teaching.
I'm asking for Church teaching - I don't understand why you don't understand that. What Catholic encyclopedia teaches that the earth is a globe? What catechism teaches it?
.
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 has an article on Geography and the Church, containing the following:
.
The object of geography is to extend our knowledge (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the earth's surface and to determine the position of our planet in relation to cosmic and physical phenomena. For the fulfillment of its first and more important task, the accuмulation of geographic information, the prerequisites were at hand even in the earlier days. It needed only intrepid men to penetrate from known to unknown countries. But the powerful incentive of a purely scientific interest was still lacking. The motives that led to geographical progress at that time were greed (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02148b.htm) and lust (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) of conquest, as well as a far nobler motive than these — the spread of Christianity (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm). To this mission the most intelligent, the most upright, and the most persevering of all explorers devoted themselves. Consequently, it was they who achieved the greatest success in the field of discovery during the Middle Ages (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) and far into later days, right up to the time when modern scientific research became its successor. The second purpose, geographical theory, commonly called universal geography, could only be profitably attempted after adequate progress had been made in the auxiliary sciences (http://newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm) of astronomy (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm), mathematics, and physics. But herein, too, medieval (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) clerical (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) scholars were the first to show their clearsightedness. For them there was no more attractive pursuit than to trace the vestiges of the Creator in all the marvellous harmony of the universe (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm). How, then, was it possible that the laws (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) governing this globe of ours could escape their search for truth (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)? Of course, they could only have a presentiment of these laws (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) but frequently enough their ideas (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm) came very close to the precise results of the great modern scientists, equipped with the best of modern instruments. Again, one of the greatest of them all was a theologian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) — Copernicus (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm).
Under these circuмstances it was inevitable that the part contributed by the Church (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) to this branch of human (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) knowledge (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) should be of great importance, as the most distinguished geographers bear witness. We may therefore rightfully present a coherent picture thereof.
...
Especial importance attaches to the map of the world made by the Spanish (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14169b.htm) monk (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10487b.htm) Beatus. Numerous copies of this show the entire area of the globe as known in 776 after Christ.
...
But geographical problems made great and unexpected progress when they received a more scientific basis. This basis was provided by the scholastics when they made the Aristotelean (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) system the starting-point of all their philosophical (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm) researches. Their thorough logical (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm) training and their strict critical method gave to the work of these commentators on Aristotle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) the value of original research, which strove to comprehend the entire contemporary science (http://newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm) of nature, as at the same time the Almagest of Ptolemy was brought to light again by the presbyter (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), Gerard of Cremona (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06468a.htm) (1114-87), there was not a single problem of modern physical and mathematical geography the solution of which was not thus attempted. The fact that the writings of Aristotle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) and Ptolemy, on which they founded their investigations, had already passed through the hands of Arabian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm) scholars, who, however, probably received them at some time from Syrian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14399a.htm) priests (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), proved (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of advantage to the consequent geographical discussions. The most eminent representative of physical studies was Albertus Magnus (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm); of mathematics, Roger Bacon (http://newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm). Their precursor, William of Conches (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15632b.htm), had already given evidence of independent conception of the facts of nature in his "Philosophia Mundi". Also Alexander Neckham (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10734a.htm) (1150 to about 1227), Abbot (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01015c.htm) of Cirencester, whose "Liber de naturâ rerum" contains the earliest record of the use of the mariner's compass in navigation and a list of remarkable springs, rivers, and lakes.
Blessed Albertus Magnus (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm) (1193-1280), a master with whom in the universality of his knowledge (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) only Alexander von Humboldt is comparable, opened up to his contemporaries the entire field of physiography, by means of his admirable exposition of Aristotle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm), laid the foundations of climatology, botanical geography, and, in a certain sense, even of comparative geography. His work "De cœlo et mundo" treats of the earth as a whole; his "libri meteororum" and "De passionibus aeris" include meteorology, hydrography, and seismology. In the "De naturâ locorum" he enlarges upon the system of the zones and the relations between man and the earth. He [Albertus Magnus] furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; he calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe. Ebb and flow, volcanology, the formation of mountain-ranges and continents — all these subjects furnish him material for clever deductions. He carefully recorded the shifting of coastlines, which men at that time already associated with the secular upheaving and subsidence of continents. He also ascertained the frequency of earthquakes in the neighbourhood of the ocean, He closely observed fossilized animals...
...
Under the leadership of La Salle, the Franciscans (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06217a.htm) Hennepin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07215c.htm), de la Ribourde, and Membré (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10172b.htm) penetrated to the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls in 1680 and the following years. The same men navigated the Mississippi, of which even the Delta had been scarcely known until then. Mexico and California (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03170a.htm) as far as the Rio Colorado were traversed by the Jesuits (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) Kino (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08660a.htm) (1644-1711), Sedlmayer (1703-1779), and Baegert (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02201b.htm) (1717-1777). We find that between 1752 and 1766 — eighty years before Meyer, the celebrated circuмnavigator of the globe — the Jesuit (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) Wolfgang Beyer reached Lake Titicaca.
.
.
The part about Albertus Magnus (d. AD 1280) should be of special relevance to your question:
.
He furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; be calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe.
.
-
Thank you for pointing out the Church erroneously teaching the pagan Ptolemaic (a pagan) globe earth model.
The Church was wrong then, just as it is wrong now in its teaching of heliocentrism.
I'm not convinced that the ptolemaic model was taught at Catholic universities, as Jayne has contended. I'll try to do some research into that. I have a book about St. Thomas and his work at the University of Paris, where the Dominicans and Franciscans were basically at war with each other. It might give some good insight into what St. Thomas, and the Dominicans and Franciscans actually taught there. I doubt that Ptolemy was a part of it at all.
-
Just like when it was wrong when it taught geocentrism. Right?
That's not what SB was saying. You pointed out that the Church taught aspects of what it condemned as if you rejoice in it. This is a common behavior among the globalists. The Church didn't teach wrongly, the people in the Church accept error. The Church Herself can do no wrong.
-
I'm not convinced that the ptolemaic model was taught at Catholic universities. I'll try to do some research into that. I have a book about St. Thomas and his work at the University of Paris, where the Dominicans and Franciscans were basically at war with each other. It might give some good insight into what St. Thomas, and the Dominicans and Franciscans actually taught there. I doubt that Ptolemy was a part of it at all.
Now that's what I'm talking about. Good old fashioned humility. Checking first before opening one's mouth, something deficient in the globalists.
-
Ptolemy lived in the second century AD and developed the astronomical model that soon dominated the Western world. This geocentric model had a spherical earth. He wrote the definitive text on astronomy used in Catholic universities. Virtually no Catholics supported flat earth after the Patristic period. Even by the sixth century when Cosmas wrote, he was a rare exception to the consensus among Catholics that the earth is a globe.
Copernicus did not introduce the idea of a ball-shaped earth to Christendom which had already accepted this idea for many centuries as part of the Ptolemaic/Aristotlean model. Copernicus introduced heliocentrism.
Enoch is not an authority, godly or otherwise. That is why it matters that it is non-canonical. It tells us that Enoch has no authority.
And yet Ptolemy's first premise is wrong (provably so) which renders his entire work in error.
-
.
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 has an article on Geography and the Church, containing the following:
.
The object of geography is to extend our knowledge (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the earth's surface and to determine the position of our planet in relation to cosmic and physical phenomena. For the fulfillment of its first and more important task, the accuмulation of geographic information, the prerequisites were at hand even in the earlier days. It needed only intrepid men to penetrate from known to unknown countries. But the powerful incentive of a purely scientific interest was still lacking. The motives that led to geographical progress at that time were greed (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02148b.htm) and lust (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) of conquest, as well as a far nobler motive than these — the spread of Christianity (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm). To this mission the most intelligent, the most upright, and the most persevering of all explorers devoted themselves. Consequently, it was they who achieved the greatest success in the field of discovery during the Middle Ages (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) and far into later days, right up to the time when modern scientific research became its successor. The second purpose, geographical theory, commonly called universal geography, could only be profitably attempted after adequate progress had been made in the auxiliary sciences (http://newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm) of astronomy (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm), mathematics, and physics. But herein, too, medieval (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) clerical (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) scholars were the first to show their clearsightedness. For them there was no more attractive pursuit than to trace the vestiges of the Creator in all the marvellous harmony of the universe (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm). How, then, was it possible that the laws (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) governing this globe of ours could escape their search for truth (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)? Of course, they could only have a presentiment of these laws (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) but frequently enough their ideas (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm) came very close to the precise results of the great modern scientists, equipped with the best of modern instruments. Again, one of the greatest of them all was a theologian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) — Copernicus (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm).
Under these circuмstances it was inevitable that the part contributed by the Church (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) to this branch of human (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) knowledge (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) should be of great importance, as the most distinguished geographers bear witness. We may therefore rightfully present a coherent picture thereof.
...
Especial importance attaches to the map of the world made by the Spanish (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14169b.htm) monk (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10487b.htm) Beatus. Numerous copies of this show the entire area of the globe as known in 776 after Christ.
...
But geographical problems made great and unexpected progress when they received a more scientific basis. This basis was provided by the scholastics when they made the Aristotelean (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) system the starting-point of all their philosophical (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm) researches. Their thorough logical (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm) training and their strict critical method gave to the work of these commentators on Aristotle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) the value of original research, which strove to comprehend the entire contemporary science (http://newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm) of nature, as at the same time the Almagest of Ptolemy was brought to light again by the presbyter (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), Gerard of Cremona (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06468a.htm) (1114-87), there was not a single problem of modern physical and mathematical geography the solution of which was not thus attempted. The fact that the writings of Aristotle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) and Ptolemy, on which they founded their investigations, had already passed through the hands of Arabian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm) scholars, who, however, probably received them at some time from Syrian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14399a.htm) priests (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), proved (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of advantage to the consequent geographical discussions. The most eminent representative of physical studies was Albertus Magnus (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm); of mathematics, Roger Bacon (http://newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm). Their precursor, William of Conches (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15632b.htm), had already given evidence of independent conception of the facts of nature in his "Philosophia Mundi". Also Alexander Neckham (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10734a.htm) (1150 to about 1227), Abbot (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01015c.htm) of Cirencester, whose "Liber de naturâ rerum" contains the earliest record of the use of the mariner's compass in navigation and a list of remarkable springs, rivers, and lakes.
Blessed Albertus Magnus (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm) (1193-1280), a master with whom in the universality of his knowledge (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) only Alexander von Humboldt is comparable, opened up to his contemporaries the entire field of physiography, by means of his admirable exposition of Aristotle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm), laid the foundations of climatology, botanical geography, and, in a certain sense, even of comparative geography. His work "De cœlo et mundo" treats of the earth as a whole; his "libri meteororum" and "De passionibus aeris" include meteorology, hydrography, and seismology. In the "De naturâ locorum" he enlarges upon the system of the zones and the relations between man and the earth. He [Albertus Magnus] furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; he calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe. Ebb and flow, volcanology, the formation of mountain-ranges and continents — all these subjects furnish him material for clever deductions. He carefully recorded the shifting of coastlines, which men at that time already associated with the secular upheaving and subsidence of continents. He also ascertained the frequency of earthquakes in the neighbourhood of the ocean, He closely observed fossilized animals...
...
Under the leadership of La Salle, the Franciscans (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06217a.htm) Hennepin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07215c.htm), de la Ribourde, and Membré (http://newadvent.org/cathen/10172b.htm) penetrated to the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls in 1680 and the following years. The same men navigated the Mississippi, of which even the Delta had been scarcely known until then. Mexico and California (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03170a.htm) as far as the Rio Colorado were traversed by the Jesuits (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) Kino (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08660a.htm) (1644-1711), Sedlmayer (1703-1779), and Baegert (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02201b.htm) (1717-1777). We find that between 1752 and 1766 — eighty years before Meyer, the celebrated circuмnavigator of the globe — the Jesuit (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) Wolfgang Beyer reached Lake Titicaca.
.
.
The part about Albertus Magnus (d. AD 1280) should be of special relevance to your question:
.
He furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; be calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe.
.
This is too funny. A globalist promoting the globalist agenda. Using this to try to prove your case is called begging the question.
-
.
Typo -- that should say "he calculated..." not "be calculated..."
.
The part about Albertus Magnus (d. AD 1280) should be of special relevance to your question:
.
He furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; he calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe.
.
BTW we moderns have at our instant disposal a vast resource far more accurate and comprehensive than Albertus Magnus ever imagined. You can get a quick glimpse of it by visiting the Astronomy section of https://www.almanac.com/astronomy (the Old Farmer's Almanac website).
-
This is too funny. A globalist promoting the globalist agenda. Using this to try to prove your case is called begging the question.
.
What's so "funny?" Meg asked for a Catholic Encyclopedia example teaching the globe earth and I provided one.
.
But to you answering an honest question with an honest answer is "funny." :confused:
.
-
.
What's so "funny?" Meg asked for a Catholic Encyclopedia example teaching the globe earth and I provided one.
.
But to you answering an honest question with an honest answer is "funny." :confused:
.
Yes, its funny. It says proof of earth being spherical has been provided. That's the problem with the response. It hasn't.
-
Do the globalists believe Genesis where it says God divided day from night?
If you do, this contradicts Ptolemy's first premise: that earth cannot be flat because the Sun would light it all up at once.
But, the sun does NOT light up earth all at once because God DIVIDED day from night.
Under the globalists' theory, day and night occur due to the rotation of earth. But that contradicts the Bible which says earth does NOT move.
Only one can be true: Ptolemy or the Bible.
The sun does not light up the entirety of the flat plane because God divided the light in HALF. The sun circles above the motionless earth lighting up half at a time.
-
All of the possible definitions of 'Orbis'
1. round
2. sphere
3. circle
4. disk
Do you understand that there is no precise term for "globe?"
Possible definitions for 'Terrae':
1. Land
2. World
.
You're missing some "possible definitions."
.
The Latin orbis can also mean
5. globe
6. spheroid
7. orb
8. ball
9. ellipsoid (one that closely appears to approximate a sphere)
.
The Latin terrae can possibly be defined as
3. earth
4. territory
5. country/countries
6. environs
.
Also, terrae is the form meaning plural or possessive case, feminine gender, so it would then be
1. lands not "land." (The Latin for land is terra, not terrae.)
.
-
Yes, its funny. It says proof of earth being spherical has been provided. That's the problem with the response. It hasn't.
.
Have you done your research yet, or are you shooting from the hip, again?
.
-
.
Typo -- that should say "he calculated..." not "be calculated..."
.
The part about Albertus Magnus (d. AD 1280) should be of special relevance to your question:
.
He furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; he calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe.
.
BTW we moderns have at our instant disposal a vast resource far more accurate and comprehensive than Albertus Magnus ever imagined. You can get a quick glimpse of it by visiting the Astronomy section of https://www.almanac.com/astronomy (the Old Farmer's Almanac website).
Ha! From New Advent. That's not a real Catholic encyclopedia. You might as well quote something from Vatican ll, which is just about as authoritative as New Advent.
-
.
Lesley B. Cormack on the Medieval View of the Earth’s Shape
LESLEY B. CORMACK, "MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE FLAT EARTH" in GALILEO GOES TO JAIL (HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS: 2009), PP. 29, 31, 33.
.
(https://i0.wp.com/afterall.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/4125473949_9ab8b9fd86_o.jpg?fit=604%2C452&ssl=1)
.
Did people in the Middle Ages think that the world was flat? …
.
From the seventh century to the fourteenth, every important medieval thinker concerned about the natural world stated more or less explicitly that the world was a round globe, many of them incorporating Ptolemy’s astronomy and Aristotle’s physics into their work. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), for example, followed Aristotle’s proof in demonstrating that the changing positions of the constellations as one moved about on the earth’s surface indicated the spherical shape of the earth. Roger Bacon (d. 1294), in his Opus Maiusi (ca. 1270), stated that the world was round, that the southern antipodes were inhabited, and that the sun’s passage along the line of the ecliptic affected climates of different parts of the world. Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) agreed with Bacon’s finding, while Michael Scot (d. 1234) “compared the earth, surrounded by water, to the yolk of an egg and the spheres of the universe to the layers of an onion.” Perhaps the most influential were Jean de Sacrobosco, whose De Sphera (ca. 1230) demonstrated that the earth was a globe, and Piere d’Ailly (1350-1410), archbishop of Cambria, whose Imago Mundi (written in 1410) discussed the sphericity of the earth. Both of these books enjoyed great popularity; Sacrobosco’s book was used as a basic textbook throughout the Middle ages, while d’Ailly’s book was read by early explorers like Columbus. … With the exception of Cosmas, no medieval writer denied that the earth was spherical — and the Catholic church never took a stand on the issue.
-
You are digging yourself into a bigger hole, Neil. You expect me to read something published by the Harvard University Press?
-
.
Typo -- that should say "he calculated..." not "be calculated..."
.
The part about Albertus Magnus (d. AD 1280) should be of special relevance to your question:
.
He furnished proofs (http://newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of the sphericity of our planet that are still popularly repeated today; he calculated accurately the duration of the day and the seasons in the different quarters of the globe.
.
BTW we moderns have at our instant disposal a vast resource far more accurate and comprehensive than Albertus Magnus ever imagined. You can get a quick glimpse of it by visiting the Astronomy section of https://www.almanac.com/astronomy (the Old Farmer's Almanac website).
You said there are no quarters.
-
You are digging yourself into a bigger hole, Neil. You expect me to read something published by the Harvard University Press?
Neil Obstat is trying to get to the bottom. ::)
-
You are digging yourself into a bigger hole, Neil. You expect me to read something published by the Harvard University Press?
I'm sure you would read it and quote it as an authority if it agreed with you.
Virtually every history source (with the exception of strongly anti-Catholic ones) says something similar to what Neil posted. Catholics believed in a spherical earth for most of our history.
-
By and by, the Catholic Church may not have been the official name of the Church in Enoch's time, but we worship the same God. And God never changes.
This ^^^^^^
-
I'm sure you would read it and quote it as an authority if it agreed with you.
Virtually every history source (with the exception of strongly anti-Catholic ones) says something similar to what Neil posted. Catholics believed in a spherical earth for most of our history.
The horizontal horizon is infallible.
-
I'm sure you would read it and quote it as an authority if it agreed with you.
Virtually every history source (with the exception of strongly anti-Catholic ones) says something similar to what Neil posted. Catholics believed in a spherical earth for most of our history.
No, I wouldn't. I try to not quote non-Catholic sources - or hadn't you noticed? Please try to be accurate, Jayne. I know it's difficult.
No, Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
-
.
Lesley B. Cormack on the Medieval View of the Earth’s Shape
LESLEY B. CORMACK, "MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE FLAT EARTH" in GALILEO GOES TO JAIL (HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS: 2009), PP. 29, 31, 33.
.
(https://i0.wp.com/afterall.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/4125473949_9ab8b9fd86_o.jpg?fit=604%2C452&ssl=1)
.
Did people in the Middle Ages think that the world was flat? …
.
From the seventh century to the fourteenth, every important medieval thinker concerned about the natural world stated more or less explicitly that the world was a round globe, many of them incorporating Ptolemy’s astronomy and Aristotle’s physics into their work. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), for example, followed Aristotle’s proof in demonstrating that the changing positions of the constellations as one moved about on the earth’s surface indicated the spherical shape of the earth. Roger Bacon (d. 1294), in his Opus Maiusi (ca. 1270), stated that the world was round, that the southern antipodes were inhabited, and that the sun’s passage along the line of the ecliptic affected climates of different parts of the world. Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) agreed with Bacon’s finding, while Michael Scot (d. 1234) “compared the earth, surrounded by water, to the yolk of an egg and the spheres of the universe to the layers of an onion.” Perhaps the most influential were Jean de Sacrobosco, whose De Sphera (ca. 1230) demonstrated that the earth was a globe, and Piere d’Ailly (1350-1410), archbishop of Cambria, whose Imago Mundi (written in 1410) discussed the sphericity of the earth. Both of these books enjoyed great popularity; Sacrobosco’s book was used as a basic textbook throughout the Middle ages, while d’Ailly’s book was read by early explorers like Columbus. … With the exception of Cosmas, no medieval writer denied that the earth was spherical — and the Catholic church never took a stand on the issue.
Neil,
In doing a little research on your author above, named, "Lesley B. Cormack," it seems that she might be into hermeticism and/or the occult. My hope is that you just found her work at random to post here, and that you are not into that sort of thing yourself.
Lesley B. Cormack published a lecture that she gave at the Harry Potter Exhibition in Alberta, 2012. The title of the lecture was called: "The Real Philosopher's Stone: Natural Philosophy and Natural Majic in the Middle Ages and Renaissance."
Hardly a good source for anything having to do with Catholic teaching.
-
No, I wouldn't. I try to not quote non-Catholic sources - or hadn't you noticed? Please try to be accurate, Jayne. I know it's difficult.
No, Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
So, if what you say is true...when did the Church begin teaching about global earth in its schools and universities throughout the world? If Catholics did not believe in the globe for most of their history, suddenly teaching about it world wide would indicate that there was a major shift and probably would have caused some controversy. Wouldn't that have been noted by at least one historian.
-
So, if what you say is true...when did the Church begin teaching about global earth in its schools and universities throughout the world? If Catholics did not believe in the globe for most of their history, suddenly teaching about it world wide would indicate that there was a major shift and probably would have caused some controversy. Wouldn't that have been noted by at least one historian.
Facts are facts. And the Church Fathers clearly taught that the globe earth was an error.
People thought, like at VII that the change didn't really matter too much. After all, it's so far away and doesn't really affect us right? Wrong of course. But that's human beings for you.
-
No, I wouldn't. I try to not quote non-Catholic sources - or hadn't you noticed? Please try to be accurate, Jayne. I know it's difficult.
No, Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
You made no objection to your fellow flat-earthers using Dickson White to support your view, even if you did not quote him yourself.
You cannot back up your assertion that Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history. All you do is try to discredit the many, many sources that show the truth about this.
-
You made no objection to your fellow flat-earthers using Dickson White to support your view, even if you did not quote him yourself.
You cannot back up your assertion that Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history. All you do is try to discredit the many, many sources that show the truth about this.
You discredit yourself.
-
Neil,
In doing a little research on your author above, named, "Lesley B. Cormack," it seems that she might be into hermeticism and/or the occult. My hope is that you just found her work at random to post here, and that you are not into that sort of thing yourself.
Lesley B. Cormack published a lecture that she gave at the Harry Potter Exhibition in Alberta, 2012. The title of the lecture was called: "The Real Philosopher's Stone: Natural Philosophy and Natural Majic in the Middle Ages and Renaissance."
Hardly a good source for anything having to do with Catholic teaching.
The Harry Potter Exhibition was Cormack's university's attempt to get publicity and attract new students. It used the popular topic of Harry Potter to draw people in. Cormack gave a lecture about what people thought about magic in the middle ages and renaissance. There is no reason to think that she is into the occult and even less reason to insinuate that Neil is.
-
The Harry Potter Exhibition was Cormack's university's attempt to get publicity and attract new students. It used the popular topic of Harry Potter to draw people in. Cormack gave a lecture about what people thought about magic in the middle ages and renaissance. There is no reason to think that she is into the occult and even less reason to insinuate that Neil is.
So you had heard of Lesley Cormack before today?
-
So you had heard of Lesley Cormack before today?
I researched her on the Internet, just like you did. I found information on her university's Harry Potter Exhibit and a video of her giving a lecture on how people used to view magic.
-
I researched her on the Internet, just like you did. I found information on her university's Harry Potter Exhibit and a video of her giving a lecture on how people used to view magic.
How do you know she's not into majic/occult/hermeticism?
-
How do you know she's not into majic/hermeticism?
You based your accusation on the existence of a lecture about magic. That is not a good reason to think she is into magic. My university medieval studies department has a course on magic and that professor is not into magic or the occult. It is a field of academic study.
Any random person might be into magic, but one ought to have a good reason to accuse him of it. You did not have a good reason.
-
You made no objection to your fellow flat-earthers using Dickson White to support your view, even if you did not quote him yourself.
You cannot back up your assertion that Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history. All you do is try to discredit the many, many sources that show the truth about this.
.
Several leaders in the flat-earthism video-sphere were atheists or agnostics before they "discovered" flat-earthism, then when they realized the market share offered much better prospects for so-called Christians, they so-called converted. Now they're raking in the "views" from the gullible, apparently.
.
-
You based your accusation on the existence of a lecture about magic. That is not a good reason to think she is into magic. My university medieval studies department has a course on magic and that professor is not into magic or the occult. It is a field of academic study.
Any random person might be into magic, but one ought to have a good reason to accuse him of it. You did not have a good reason.
You always change the direction of the discussion, rather than address what has been given. That's just so very....freemasonic, and Jєωιѕн.
-
No, I wouldn't. I try to not quote non-Catholic sources - or hadn't you noticed? Please try to be accurate, Jayne. I know it's difficult.
No, Catholics have not believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
.
Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Jean de Sacrobosco, Piere d’Ailly and Michael Scot? Those Catholics?.
.
Let me guess -- you can't attack the substance of this paragraph, therefore, you resort to attacking its author, correct?
.
From the seventh century to the fourteenth, every important medieval thinker concerned about the natural world stated more or less explicitly that the world was a round globe, many of them incorporating Ptolemy’s astronomy and Aristotle’s physics into their work. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), for example, followed Aristotle’s proof in demonstrating that the changing positions of the constellations as one moved about on the earth’s surface indicated the spherical shape of the earth. Roger Bacon (d. 1294), in his Opus Maiusi (ca. 1270), stated that the world was round, that the southern antipodes were inhabited, and that the sun’s passage along the line of the ecliptic affected climates of different parts of the world. Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) agreed with Bacon’s finding, while Michael Scot (d. 1234) “compared the earth, surrounded by water, to the yolk of an egg and the spheres of the universe to the layers of an onion.” Perhaps the most influential were Jean de Sacrobosco, whose De Sphera (ca. 1230) demonstrated that the earth was a globe, and Piere d’Ailly (1350-1410), archbishop of Cambria, whose Imago Mundi (written in 1410) discussed the sphericity of the earth. Both of these books enjoyed great popularity; Sacrobosco’s book was used as a basic textbook throughout the Middle ages, while d’Ailly’s book was read by early explorers like Columbus. … With the exception of Cosmas, no medieval writer denied that the earth was spherical — and the Catholic church never took a stand on the issue.
-
You always change the direction of the discussion, rather than address what has been given. That's just so very....freemasonic, and Jєωιѕн.
.
This entire thread is a constantly changing direction of discussion.
.
So what else is new? The first page or two has been long forgotten!!
.
-
From reply #55 my post from this thread
Our brothers and children from every quarter of the globe, messages which bespoke a welcome to ... hundred bishops from all sections of the globe were reunited with Us before the tomb
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11arcan.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11arcan.htm)
Sollicitudo pastoralis - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm)
Church spread throughout the whole globe by divine disposition, urges and impels Us to attend to fostering and preserving the Orders of men religious instituted by this holy See
www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/soll-e.htm)
Praedecessores Nostros - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm)
Catholic religion in the farthest parts of the globe. Finally the Irish nation zealously honors and understands divine Peter whose humble representative We are, and whose dignity
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9praede.htm)
Quod Apostolici Muneris - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm)
Benedict XIV did not fail to unmask the evil counsels of the sects, and to warn the faithful of the whole globe against the ruin which would be wrought. Later on again, when a
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13apost.htm)
Vigilanti Cura - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm)
in other quarters of the globe. It is equally the duty of the Bishops of the entire Catholic world to unite in vigilance over this universal and potent form of entertainment and
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11vigil.htm)
Inscrutabili Dei Consilio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm)
and — by uplifting the standard of redemption in all quarters of the globe, by introducing, or shielding under her protection, the sciences and arts, by founding and taking into
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13evl.htm)
Depuis Le Jour - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm)
Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe, and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism. He
www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13depui.htm)
Le voci che da tutti - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm)
College from all points of the globe, even the most remote, to the Ecuмenical Council.Glorious St. Joseph! Here, here is your place as “Protector of the Universal Church.” We
www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23levoci.htm)
Populorum Progressio - Papal Encyclicals (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6develo.htm)
across the surface of the globe, leading them to recognize, across all frontiers, the faces of their brothers, the faces of their friend”.[63]76. Excessive economic, social and
To which Meg finally replied on post 172, thank you Meg for your “try”
She wanted the readers to know her observation. See below from her post 172 on this thread
Also, about those encyclicals that are supped to show that the Church teaches that the earth is a globe. The encyclical Sollicitudo Pastoralis from 1679 doesn't actually say that the earth is a globe, as Myrna has claimed. she has only shown the English translation. The term used to describe the earth, in the Latin version of the encyclical, uses the term "Orbem" to describe the earth, which doesn't necessarily mean "globe."
I looked up the description of "Orbem" which the Latin version of the encyclical uses. The various uses and definitions of the term "Orbem" are as follows:
1. Circle, ring
2. circular motion
3. rotation
4. disc or disc shaped object
5. the earth, the world, the globe
Notice the word “Orbem” has several meanings as Meg was so kind to teach us. The 5th definitions the word “globe” is included, therefore when the Catholic authority chose to use the word “globe”in its writings instead of the other various uses we should assume Church meant “globe” otherwise they would have used another sense of the meaning of “Orbem”.
The Church does not deceive nor can it be deceived. It seems the Church did think of the earth, its shape, as a globe. There you have it straight from the Vatican.
-
Yes, I did. Can you answer, in space where is up and where is down in the eyes of God?
Since you seem to believe we are living upside down, where is down?
Answer since you seem to know the answer.
I hope
Aryzia is not hiding under his bed or whatever still waiting for an answer ... TICK TOCK :popcorn:
-
There is no space as in outer space. There is the sky; above which is the firmament. Above that is heaven. Up is up. God is above. On a globe, there is no up. There is no down. Nothing is actually true on a globe. In fact, on a globe, God is sometimes below. My, oh my, what a concept! No wonder you don't know which end is up! You live on a globe.
Makes one wonder why Our Lady held a globe in her hands when she instructed the nun to have the Miraculous Metal struck, a vision approved by the Church.
-
From reply #55 my post from this threadTo which Meg finally replied on post 172, thank you Meg for your “try”
She wanted the readers to know her observation. See below from her post 172 on this thread
Notice the word “Orbem” has several meanings as Meg was so kind to teach us. The 5th definitions the word “globe” is included, therefore when the Catholic authority chose to use the word “globe” in its writings instead of the other various uses we should assume Church meant “globe” otherwise they would have used another sense of the meaning of “Orbem”.
The Church does not deceive nor can it be deceived. It seems the Church did think of the earth, its shape, as a globe. There you have it straight from the Vatican.
.
When referring to words used in Latin text you can't cherry pick the words out of context like you can somewhat in English, because the sentence in which they occur has an effect on the meaning of the word much more in Latin.
.
There are declensions as well as gender, number and person in Latin.
.
And in many cases an electronic translator can't do justice for Latin, so you need a Latinist (human being) to intervene.
.
Meg was demonstrating that regardless of what the Church said, Meg does not WANT the Church to say "globe."
.
-
Makes one wonder why Our Lady held a globe in her hands when she instructed the nun to have the Miraculous Metal struck, a vision approved by the Church.
That is the globe of creation. The flat earth is in the center of the globe of creation.
-
I am not a scientist so this might sound silly. If the round earth is in space who can say what is up and what is down?
.
Anywhere in outer space, "down" is toward the planet Earth, and "up" is away from planet Earth, because "up and down" is an earth-centered principle, and therefore without Earth these words mean nothing.
.
One could argue about an astronaut standing on the moon or some other planet and speaking of "up" or "down" as if in context of being on that other large body of matter not the earth. Well, we are not on such a planet or moon so we don't have to be concerned with that. Some say we'll never be on such a place, so it's a matter of science fiction, practically speaking.
.
Therefore Earth remains the central figure of what "up" and "down" means.
.
-
That is the globe of creation. The flat earth is in the center of the globe of creation.
troll
-
troll
You have already lost. You try to tell God to uncreate the flat earth to fit you Freemasonic heresy and you will find out God won't listen to you. :applause:
-
.
Anywhere in outer space, "down" is toward the planet Earth, and "up" is away from planet Earth, because "up and down" is an earth-centered principle, and therefore without Earth these words mean nothing.
.
One could argue about an astronaut standing on the moon or some other planet and speaking of "up" or "down" as if in context of being on that other large body of matter not the earth. Well, we are not on such a planet or moon so we don't have to be concerned with that. Some say we'll never be on such a place, so it's a matter of science fiction, practically speaking.
.
Therefore Earth remains the central figure of what "up" and "down" means.
.
Fascinating. So when Kirk says, "Beam me up, Scotty", We can expect him to beam to earth?
-
happenby have you always been attracted to fantasy?
-
happenby have you always been attracted to fantasy?
Fantasy? Sure. Let's pick one. Its probably dope to live upside down. My anti-gravity pods might leak particles that jam communications and put pressure on the bulkhead. But what the hay? Subsequent planetary pole shift is a real danger because it can knock scanners off line sending everything into emergency warp drive and draining the phaser banks. If the transporter becomes inoperable, escape would be impossible. Star Base teams can recreate templates for reconstruction, but pre-60's tubes and transistors within the main panel are finicky and could cause photon torpedoes to shoot randomly. Extended shore leave is indicated at that point.
-
That is the globe of creation. The flat earth is in the center of the globe of creation.
Is the Sun flat? :confused:
-
Fantasy? Sure. Let's pick one. Its probably dope to live upside down. My anti-gravity pods might leak particles that jam communications and put pressure on the bulkhead. But what the hay? Subsequent planetary pole shift is a real danger because it can knock scanners off line sending everything into emergency warp drive and draining the phaser banks. If the transporter becomes inoperable, escape would be impossible. Star Base teams can recreate templates for reconstruction, but pre-60's tubes and transistors within the main panel are finicky and could cause photon torpedoes to shoot randomly. Extended shore leave is indicated at that point.
Wow happenby did you learn NASA as a second language?
:laugh1:
-
Is the Sun flat? :confused:
Does it matter? We see the sun everyday, it is what it is.
Walking around on the outside of a spinning ball ‘globe’ however, makes no sense. Walking on a flat plane under a dome Firmament is the ‘inside’ or ‘center’ of a ‘globe creation’. That is what TIE is referring to.
-
Can’t leave out the Firmament anymore guys come on! :fryingpan:
Let’s get that Globe model with a tent pitched around it already sheesh! :popcorn:
-
Why does it make no sense? Do you know God's mind? Is it possible that God ordered creation in a way that does not make sense to your imperfect, non-omniscient mind?
God is not unreasonable even if He is above.
-
This is a lie. The Church Fathers as a whole did not teach GE was an error. Only one condemned it and a few expressed that their personal belief was that the Earth was flat. Others clearly believed in a Globe Earth and/or taught that it was definitely not a matter of religion necessary for Salvation.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/church-fathers-did-not-condemn-flat-earth/)
None taught earth is a globe. The ones who actually taught anything taught earth is as scripture literally describes. Flat.
-
Not true. Read the quotes in the link provided.
I read them, there was not a single teaching that earth is a globe.
-
I was actually responding to the "The ones who actually taught anything taught earth is as scripture literally describes. Flat." part of her comment. St. Augustine and St. Basil are really the only ones who are technically "teaching" about the topic and they take the position that this subject of shapes is not part of Scripture nor is it relevant to our faith.
Aside from that you need to read the quotes again because it seems that this quote from St. Gregory Nyssa is teaching Globe Earth.
St. Gregory also says the sun is many times the size of the Earth, Eusebius says the stars orbit our globe,
St. Gregory is clearing mocking the globe. Origen was a flat earther, so your quote, which is quite vague, cannot possibly be a teaching that earth is a globe. He also says its the Greeks, (the pagans) that use the term spheres.
Now, for the record, not one of your quotes was useful for showing the Father's taught the globe.
-
Do you actually know how to make a real, non straw-man argument.
I saidI wasn't really intending to show they taught the globe earth. Even though this passage from St. Gregory does.
St Gregory is clearly not mocking the globe earth and the fact that you are saying that shows me that you have not taken the time to look this passage up and read the whole thing. This shows me that you are not interested in learning anything about this subject. This also tells me you are definitely a troll trying to either keep people from looking into the subjects of real importance or are just trying to discredit the FE position.
Oh, I read it. Did you?
Let me post it again for you so you can understand what it says, because you continue to get it wrong.
"For if it is true, what you say , and also that the vault of heaven prolongs itself so uninterruptedly that it encircles all things with itself, and that the earth and its surroundings are poised in the middle, and that the motion of all the revolving bodies is round this fixed and solid centre, then, I say, there is an absolute necessity that, whatever may happen to each one of the atoms on the upper side of the earth, the same will happen on the opposite side, seeing that one single substance encompasses its entire bulk. As, when the sun shines above the earth, the shadow is spread over its lower part, because its spherical shape makes it impossible for it to be clasped all round at one and the same time by the rays, and necessarily, on whatever side the sun's rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness."
St. Gregory is pretty clear here. He uses their model against them by saying. "For IF it is true, what you say", ..but then St. Gregory shows what is response is. "THEN I SAY...." By the time he gets done, following their model to logical conclusions, he shows them that if what they are saying is true, then both the upper half and the under half of the earth are simultaneously in light and darkness. In other words, their model doesn't work.
-
St Gregory is clearly not mocking the globe earth and the fact that you are saying that shows me that you have not taken the time to look this passage up and read the whole thing.
Here is the essay from which the passage is taken.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)
In context it is very clear that St. Gregory is not mocking the globe earth and that he believes it himself. Happenby is completely misunderstanding it by taking it in isolation.
The claim that all the Fathers taught/believed in a flat earth simply is not true.
-
Here is the essay from which the passage is taken.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)
In context it is very clear that St. Gregory is not mocking the globe earth and that he believes it himself.
The claim that all the Fathers taught/believed in a flat earth simply is not true.
The horizontal horizon is Infallible.
-
Here is the essay from which the passage is taken.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)
In context it is very clear that St. Gregory is not mocking the globe earth and that he believes it himself. Happenby is completely misunderstanding it by taking it in isolation.
The claim that all the Fathers taught/believed in a flat earth simply is not true.
You think this unrelated passage is about global lessons of the Fathers? Then stop trying to pretend it is. This is one essay, not even about the subject at hand. I glossed over the fraction that was given me and came to a wrong conclusion. When the whole quote was provided, it became quite clear. What's sad for you is that when you've been shown the full truth, you cannot be corrected. I would so rather be me.
-
You think this unrelated passage is about global lessons of the Fathers? Then stop trying to pretend it is. This is one essay, not even about the subject at hand. I glossed over the fraction that was given me and came to a wrong conclusion. When the whole quote was provided, it became quite clear. What's sad for you is that when you've been shown the full truth, you cannot be corrected. I would so rather be me.
I think that somewhere in there is an admission that you were wrong. I suppose that's something.
-
I think that somewhere in there is an admission that you were wrong. I suppose that's something.
Waiting on a shred of humility from you.
-
Do the globalists believe Genesis where it says God divided day from night?
If you do, this contradicts Ptolemy's first premise: that earth cannot be flat because the Sun would light it all up at once.
But, the sun does NOT light up earth all at once because God DIVIDED day from night.
Under the globalists' theory, day and night occur due to the rotation of earth. But that contradicts the Bible which says earth does NOT move.
Only one can be true: Ptolemy or the Bible.
The sun does not light up the entirety of the flat plane because God divided the light in HALF. The sun circles above the motionless earth lighting up half at a time.
Not one globalist here has answered this post.
Their pagan Ptolemaic globe model is FALSIFIED by the Bible's many verses stating the earth does NOT move.
The globalists cannot keep their explanation of day and night under Ptolemy's theory AND keep the Bible true: the two are incompatible with each other. As all lies are incompatible with the truth.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/the-earthmovers/
This old thread shows the occult sources of the globalist revolution.
-
Not one globalist here has answered this post.
Their pagan Ptolemaic globe model is FALSIFIED by the Bible's many verses stating the earth does NOT move.
The globalists cannot keep their explanation of day and night under Ptolemy's theory AND keep the Bible true: the two are incompatible with each other. As all lies are incompatible with the truth.
Probably nobody has answered the post because we don't accept the Ptolemaic model and feel no need to defend it. While it was the most widely accept model among Catholics throughout the Middle Ages and up to the time of Galileo, it is unusual to find adherents now.
What is significant about the Ptolemaic model is that its acceptance over so many centuries means that Catholics believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
-
Probably nobody has answered the post because we don't accept the Ptolemaic model and feel no need to defend it. While it was the most widely accept model among Catholics throughout the Middle Ages and up to the time of Galileo, it is unusual to find adherents now.
What is significant about the Ptolemaic model is that its acceptance over so many centuries means that Catholics believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
Not only is that not true, it wouldn't matter if the whole world believed wrongly. As if popularity were the arbiter of what really IS. What a joke. Globers prove over and over that they simply cannot handle the truth.
-
Not only is that not true, it wouldn't matter if the whole world believed wrongly. As if popularity were the arbiter of what really IS. What a joke. Globers prove over and over that they simply cannot handle the truth.
It is true that Catholics have believed in a globe earth for most of our history and it matters because some flat-earthers here keep claiming that Catholics believed in a flat earth up to the time of Galileo.
It is correct that the popularity of the view does not prove it is true, but it shows that these flat-earthers are wrong about the history of these ideas.
-
It is true that Catholics have believed in a globe earth for most of our history and it matters because some flat-earthers here keep claiming that Catholics believed in a flat earth up to the time of Galileo.
It is correct that the popularity of the view does not prove it is true, but it shows that these flat-earthers are wrong about the history of these ideas.
This is not true in any capacity. The pendulum swung back and forth throughout the centuries, but the most important point is that the only teachings on the shape of the earth that comes from Christendom proves Scriptural flat earth. And there are no teachings about the global heliocentrism.
-
This is not true in any capacity. The pendulum swung back and forth throughout the centuries, but the most important point is that the only teachings on the shape of the earth that comes from Christendom proves Scriptural flat earth. And there are no teachings about the global heliocentrism.
Sure there are Catholic teachings on global heliocentrism. They have been quoted recently but you apparently tune them out. Both St. Albert the Great and St. Bede are Doctors of the Church who explicitly taught this.
-
Probably nobody has answered the post because we don't accept the Ptolemaic model and feel no need to defend it. While it was the most widely accept model among Catholics throughout the Middle Ages and up to the time of Galileo, it is unusual to find adherents now.
What is significant about the Ptolemaic model is that its acceptance over so many centuries means that Catholics believed in a globe earth for most of our history.
You have said repeatedly that globe earth comes from Ptolemy and that is why the Church believes in globe earth.
Now you say it doesn't.
Which is it?
You can't have it both ways.
Please explain where YOU believe "the Church"or any Church father got their globe earth belief, because NO church father believed heliocentrism.
I noticed you sidestepped the fact that Ptolemy got it wrong since Bible says earth does not move.
-
You have said repeatedly that globe earth comes from Ptolemy and that is why the Church believes in globe earth.
Now you say it doesn't.
Which is it?
You can't have it both ways.
Please explain where YOU believe "the Church"or any Church father got their globe earth belief, because NO church father believed heliocentrism.
I noticed you sidestepped the fact that Ptolemy got it wrong since Bible says earth does not move.
Historically, many Catholics believed in a globe earth because that was part of the Ptolemaic model that dominated Western thinking. That model was replaced by other models as science developed, so almost no Catholics use it now.
The Church does not teach us to interpret Scripture the way that you do. When Leo XIII wrote, "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time," he was drawing on earlier teaching from St. Augustine and St. Thomas. There is a long tradition of understanding Scripture in a way that is compatible with a variety of scientific models.
-
Historically, many Catholics believed in a globe earth because that was part of the Ptolemaic model that dominated Western thinking. That model was replaced by other models as science developed, so almost no Catholics use it now.
The Church does not teach us to interpret Scripture the way that you do. When Leo XIII wrote, "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time," he was drawing on earlier teaching from St. Augustine and St. Thomas. There is a long tradition of understanding Scripture in a way that is compatible with a variety of scientific models.
The reason you say, "does not interpret Scripture the way you do" is merely because you disagree with the interpretation. Not because the Church doesn't interpret it literally. Or as we have shown. In fact, the Church does do this because Scripture reflects flat earth perfectly and that's how Fathers and saints interpreted it. As the Fathers, Scripture and the Church do. Continuing to say it doesn't work this way is utterly false and dishonest. We have proof, agreement, and understanding with Scirpture and Fathers who teach about the earth. You have nothing.
-
literally!
As in twisting poles for pillars when you don't like the word "poles"!
BTW I am sure you have covered this since I haven't read much of your viewpoint, but who or what holds up the pillars that hold up the frisbee shaped earth, if I dare ask?
-
The reason you say, "does not interpret Scripture the way you do" is merely because you disagree with the interpretation. Not because the Church doesn't interpret it literally. Or as we have shown. In fact, the Church does do this because Scripture reflects flat earth perfectly and that's how Fathers and saints interpreted it. As the Fathers, Scripture and the Church do. Continuing to say it doesn't work this way is utterly false and dishonest. We have proof, agreement, and understanding with Scirpture and Fathers who teach about the earth. You have nothing.
You have asserted a lot of things but you have not shown them. You have been shown that some, but not all, of the Fathers believed in a flat earth and then, starting around the 6th century, globe earth became the dominant view. Many Saints and Doctors of the Church believed in a globe earth. The Church never taught that the earth is flat or that Scripture shows the earth is flat. That is the personal interpretation of a tiny minority of Catholics who ignore the Church's teaching on principles of Scripture interpretation.
If you really had all the proof and agreement that you claim to, I would expect to see many traditionalist Catholics, including priests, holding the flat earth position. But we do not. Instead, we see a extremely small number of laity and no priests who accept it. And many of these people exhibit cult-like behaviour, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and general nastiness.
You are wrong. Even someone like Ladislaus, who is open to believing your science claims, can tell you that your claims about Scripture and the Fathers do not hold up. You are so blind that you do not see that you are the one who has nothing.
-
literally!
As in twisting poles for pillars when you don't like the word "poles"!
BTW I am sure you have covered this since I haven't read much of your viewpoint, but who or what holds up the pillars that hold up the frisbee shaped earth, if I dare ask?
Ma'am, as I explained earlier, and apparently you refuse to listen, the original word used in scripture translates to pole, pillar or foundation. Get a clue.
-
You have asserted a lot of things but you have not shown them. You have been shown that some, but not all, of the Fathers believed in a flat earth and then, starting around the 6th century, globe earth became the dominant view. Many Saints and Doctors of the Church believed in a globe earth. The Church never taught that the earth is flat or that Scripture shows the earth is flat. That is the personal interpretation of a tiny minority of Catholics who ignore the Church's teaching on principles of Scripture interpretation.
If you really had all the proof and agreement that you claim to, I would expect to see many traditionalist Catholics, including priests, holding the flat earth position. But we do not. Instead, we see a extremely small number of laity and no priests who accept it. And many of these people exhibit cult-like behaviour, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and general nastiness.
You are wrong. Even someone like Ladislaus, who is open to believing your science claims, can tell you that your claims about Scripture and the Fathers do not hold up. You are so blind that you do not see that you are the one who has nothing.
Actually, I have shown them. If you can't keep up with the thread or need a repeat, say so...but don't say it hasn't been shown.
-
Actually, I have shown them. If you can't keep up with the thread or need a repeat, say so...but don't say it hasn't been shown.
You have tried to show it but failed to do so.
-
You have tried to show it but failed to do so.
Only because you are stubbornly addicted to your view
-
Only because you are stubbornly addicted to your view
:laugh2: :laugh1:
It is awfully funny for you to say that about somebody else.
-
:laugh2: :laugh1:
It is awfully funny for you to say that about somebody else.
The situation is that dire.
-
.
It's getting close again for the quarter moon bi-monthly display in the sky, for those who would dare to observe the truth in action before our eyes.
.
-
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac site shows this thumbnail for Saturday (yesterday):
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m042.jpg)
.
The waxing crescent moon had 13% illumination from the sun.
.
But the orientation of the real thing in the sky was rotated almost 90 degrees clockwise from that image.
.
What we saw in the sky yesterday evening was a "Cheshire cat smile."
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedenmanlife.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmooncrescent-714263.jpg&sp=faf1f58ce762ccae5e6418d12090fdc6)
.
This is extremely close to what was there. Rotate this about 3 degrees counterclockwise and that's just right.
.
There is a lot to learn from this fact.
.
What you see in this evening's sky is almost the same but with a little more moon illuminated.
.
7% more to be precise, as the Almanac shows, it's now at 20%.
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m052.jpg)
(today's Almanac thumbnail for 20%)
-
.
Tomorrow will show 29% illumination from the sun:
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m064.jpg)
-
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac site shows this thumbnail for Saturday (yesterday):
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m042.jpg)
.
The waxing crescent moon had 13% illumination from the sun.
.
But the orientation of the real thing in the sky was rotated almost 90 degrees clockwise from that image.
.
What we saw in the sky yesterday evening was a "Cheshire cat smile."
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedenmanlife.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmooncrescent-714263.jpg&sp=faf1f58ce762ccae5e6418d12090fdc6)
.
This is extremely close to what was there. Rotate this about 3 degrees counterclockwise and that's just right.
.
There is a lot to learn from this fact.
.
What you see in this evening's sky is almost the same but with a little more moon illuminated.
.
7% more to be precise, as the Almanac shows, it's now at 20%.
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m052.jpg)
(today's Almanac thumbnail for 20%)
You will NEVER observe the "Cheshire cat" at zenith - only at set.
This is due to the law of perspective.
Try learning something.
-
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac site shows this thumbnail for Saturday (yesterday):
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m042.jpg)
.
The waxing crescent moon had 13% illumination from the sun.
.
But the orientation of the real thing in the sky was rotated almost 90 degrees clockwise from that image.
.
What we saw in the sky yesterday evening was a "Cheshire cat smile."
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedenmanlife.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmooncrescent-714263.jpg&sp=faf1f58ce762ccae5e6418d12090fdc6)
.
This is extremely close to what was there. Rotate this about 3 degrees counterclockwise and that's just right.
.
There is a lot to learn from this fact.
.
What you see in this evening's sky is almost the same but with a little more moon illuminated.
.
7% more to be precise, as the Almanac shows, it's now at 20%.
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m052.jpg)
(today's Almanac thumbnail for 20%)
So the Almanac is more reliable than Enoch?
-
So the Almanac is more reliable than Enoch?
There is no reason it wouldn't be. Enoch is not part of the canon of Scripture and has no authority and no guarantee of being free from error.
-
There is no reason it wouldn't be. Enoch is not part of the canon of Scripture and has no authority and no guarantee of being free from error.
Oh but the Almanac does? You globalists are def only drawing from secular sources to the exclusion of Godly ones.
-
Oh but the Almanac does? You globalists are def only drawing from secular sources to the exclusion of Godly ones.
Do you know if Enoch is still considered scripture, even though it is not canonical? I don't know much about it.
If it is considered scripture (though not canonical), then it is very telling that the globalists consider the Farmer's Almanac to be above it.
-
.
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac has been in circulation for hundreds of years and farmers all over the world use its data to plan the planting of their crops and for answering other important questions related to their art.
.
Flat-earthers come along as if the world's history has just begun yesterday (except of course for the non-Scriptural book of Enoch) and never have any coherent or objective criticism of the almanac or the methods used to tabulate its charts.
.
Nonetheless, whenever the data of the almanac poses a glaring problem for the pet (false) hypothesis of flat-earthism, they suddenly have a problem with the almanac.
.
-
.
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
Not as pathetic as believing that the Farmer's Almanac is infallible! ;D
-
Do you know if Enoch is still considered scripture, even though it is not canonical? I don't know much about it.
If it is considered scripture (though not canonical), then it is very telling that the globalists consider the Farmer's Almanac to be above it.
.
FYI, Scripture is what you find in the Bible (presuming you are Christian -- Hindus have their own so-called scripture, etc.), and the Bible has never included the Book of Enoch.
.
Perhaps you might find the history of how the Church decided what is Scripture and what is not.
.
As for the Old Farmer's Almanac, its contents are very reliable and have been checked and double checked many times by thousands of readers. But the problem flat-earthers have with this concept is they fail to realize that the material under the title of the almanac is of a different NATURE than the material under the title of Scripture.
.
The Bible is concerned with spiritual matters and is directed toward the salvation of our soul.
.
The almanac has no objective of saving your soul, and is entirely concerned with providing facts of astronomical reality and other information that farmers find useful for running their farms well.
.
You can be a very holy person and a lousy farmer, and you can be an excellent farmer who loses his soul because of unrepented sin.
.
-
Not as pathetic as believing that the Farmer's Almanac is infallible! ;D
.
I never said the almanac is "infallible" but if you can find an error somewhere in it, please do post it for all to see.
.
-
.
I never said the almanac is "infallible" but if you can find an error somewhere in it, please do post it for all to see.
.
Right. Like I'm going to take the time to go through it to find errors. That would be silly. Why do you propose such silly things? I don't get it.
You generally consider it to be free from error though, right?
-
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac doesn't make a big production of its errors and omissions. Very rarely they provide apology for having made some mistake or omission, but it's very rare. In general the almanac is very reliable and provides vast amounts of useful information. They try to make their presentation enjoyable for their readers.
.
Here is an image they currently have on their home page which is probably not an actual photograph of the moon being observed by a group of people. It is merely an image that is given as an attraction to the article which it heads. It is a graphic arts composition designed to get readers interested in clicking on the article and reading it, and nothing more. It carries no moral message, nor is it intended to predict some event of great consequence soon to befall the earth or whatever. It's just a nice, interesting picture.
.
(https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/modules/moon/mask/moon-phase-mask.png)
-
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac doesn't make a big production of its errors and omissions. Very rarely they provide apology for having made some mistake or omission, but it's very rare. In general the almanac is very reliable and provides vast amounts of useful information. They try to make their presentation enjoyable for their readers.
.
Here is an image they currently have on their home page which is probably not an actual photograph of the moon being observed by a group of people. It is merely an image that is given as an attraction to the article which it heads. It is a graphic arts composition designed to get readers interested in clicking on the article and reading it, and nothing more. It carries no moral message, nor is it intended to predict some event of great consequence soon to befall the earth or whatever. It's just a nice, interesting picture.
.
(https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/modules/moon/mask/moon-phase-mask.png)
Yes, it is a nice picture. Whoever made it did a good job. But it distorts reality.
-
Right. Like I'm going to take the time to go through it to find errors. That would be silly. Why do you propose such silly things? I don't get it.
You generally consider it to be free from error though, right?
.
In case you missed it, I have been repeatedly accused of "contributing nothing" to the discussion.
.
Then when I mention something as consequential and universally accepted as the almanac, flat-earthers claim I'm attempting to make it more reliable than the Bible.
.
The Bible and the almanac are concerned with different things, the former spiritual, the latter material.
.
I've been referring to the Old Farmer's Almanac off and on for over a half century and have never found any error in it.
.
But nonetheless, I have read about an error or an omission occurring in rare instances, even though I never saw one.
.
Does that answer your question?
-
Yes, it is a nice picture. Whoever made it did a good job. But it distorts reality.
.
Are you accusing the almanac of publishing "an error" because of this picture?
.
-
.
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac has been in circulation for hundreds of years and farmers all over the world use its data to plan the planting of their crops and for answering other important questions related to their art.
.
Flat-earthers come along as if the world's history has just begun yesterday (except of course for the non-Scriptural book of Enoch) and never have any coherent or objective criticism of the almanac or the methods used to tabulate its charts.
.
Nonetheless, whenever the data of the almanac poses a glaring problem for the pet (false) hypothesis of flat-earthism, they suddenly have a problem with the almanac.
Who cares how long Almanac has done business? As if the difference didn't matter? There is a difference and it matters. One is Godly, the other secular. That's the point. Truth comes from God. Lies come from man.
-
.
Are you accusing the almanac of publishing "an error" because of this picture?
.
Since that picture is in the Farmer's Almanac, I would think that they would be interested in showing pictures that reflect reality. That picture shows the moon much larger than it actually is in relative size to humans.
I expect would expect a non-reality picture from, say, a comic book company, or sci-fi movie, but not from a publication that tries puts out non-fictional material.
Does that answer your question?
-
Do you know if Enoch is still considered scripture, even though it is not canonical? I don't know much about it.
If it is considered scripture (though not canonical), then it is very telling that the globalists consider the Farmer's Almanac to be above it.
There is no such thing as Sacred Scripture that is not canonical.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) yet we are dependent upon the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) for our knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) what books belong to the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible). At the Council of Trent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm) she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm)
Also:
The word canon as applied to the Scriptures has long had a special and consecrated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm) meaning. In its fullest comprehension it signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm), and destined for the well-being of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), using the latter word in the wide sense of the theocratic society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) which began with God's revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) of Himself to the people of Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm), and which finds its ripe development and completion in the Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) organism. The whole Biblical Canon therefore consists of the canons of the Old (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm) and New Testaments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
There are many ancient writings. We know which ones are revealed by God through the teaching of the Church. The writings identified by the Church may be called "the canon of Scripture" or "Sacred Scripture" or the "Holy Bible." These are different names for the same thing.
The word "scripture" comes from a Latin root meaning writing and is sometimes used for the important writings of other religions, but in the context of Catholicism only means Sacred Scripture.
The Book of Enoch has no more authority than the Farmer's Almanac and seems far less accurate. Neither is infallible.
-
I have zero interest in your opinion on the subject Jayne.
-
.
If you're having a moral crisis over that picture you may really turn back-flips over this one.
.
(https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/styles/primary_image_in_article/public/image_nodes/full_snow_moon.jpg?itok=C9lyEdls)
-
A moral crisis? That's a huge exaggeration, Neil.
-
Who cares how long Almanac has done business? As if the difference didn't matter? There is a difference and it matters. One is Godly, the other secular. That's the point. Truth comes from God. Lies come from man.
Since the Church did not choose to include the Book of Enoch in Scripture, what authority do you have to declare it is "Godly"?
Aprocryphal writings contain errors and are sometimes associated with heresies.
-
I have zero interest in your opinion on the subject Jayne.
I posted Catholic Encyclopedia excerpts to answer your question. How is that my opinion?
You certainly make it clear that you have no interest in truth.
-
Since that picture is in the Farmer's Almanac, I would think that they would be interested in showing pictures that reflect reality. That picture shows the moon much larger than it actually is in relative size to humans.
I expect would expect a non-reality picture from, say, a comic book company, or sci-fi movie, but not from a publication that tries puts out non-fictional material.
Does that answer your question?
.
No, it doesn't. I asked the same question, actually. Now your answer tells me you don't know anything about photography especially in regards to relative sizes of subjects consequent to use of telephoto lenses.
.
As a matter of fact, it is quite simple to produce such a photograph of REALITY (a photo that is not altered in any way but is a recording of what was actually provided by a telephoto lens mounted on a camera) that shows the moon to be FAR LARGER than what that picture shows.
.
-
.
I can sympathize with the internal conflict that flat-earthers must feel when confronted with overwhelming evidence that flat-earthism is a myth, a fantasy, a pipe dream. It's okay to be frustrated. I understand.
.
I have to wonder though, how many hundreds of facts you're going to energetically deny before you realize that you're fighting a losing battle, and for what? The shape of the earth is not a matter of faith upon which your salvation depends.
.
-
Since the Church did not choose to include the Book of Enoch in Scripture, what authority do you have to declare it is "Godly"?
Aprocryphal writings contain errors and are sometimes associated with heresies.
Scripture and Our Lord refer to Enoch writings.
-
Scripture and Our Lord refer to Enoch writings.
And that is why the Church considered making it part of the canon of Scripture. But what the Church ultimately decided was that this book is not revelation from God. The words from it that are quoted in Scripture are guaranteed without error and that's it. Only the Church has the authority to decide this.
-
Fantasy? Sure. Let's pick one. Its probably dope to live upside down. My anti-gravity pods might leak particles that jam communications and put pressure on the bulkhead. But what the hay? Subsequent planetary pole shift is a real danger because it can knock scanners off line sending everything into emergency warp drive and draining the phaser banks. If the transporter becomes inoperable, escape would be impossible. Star Base teams can recreate templates for reconstruction, but pre-60's tubes and transistors within the main panel are finicky and could cause photon torpedoes to shoot randomly. Extended shore leave is indicated at that point.
.
This thread exploded and I couldn't keep up with it. I don't have all day to read the forum.
.
So having missed most of the pages I just now found the one with this fantasy post, above, on it where happenby demonstrates her obsession with fantasy like Star Trek and war stories (perhaps from watching too many WWII movies) and now I see this goes a long way to explaining what her obsession is with the fantasy of flat-earthism. It's a lot like Starship Enterprise or McHale's Navy.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcO7NukTTM0
.
Parker played by Tim Conway, who also co-authored the script.
.
-
And that is why the Church considered making it part of the canon of Scripture. But what the Church ultimately decided was that this book is not revelation from God. The words from it that are quoted in Scripture are guaranteed without error and that's it. Only the Church has the authority to decide this.
That is false. Only included in the canon were the most necessary books. Many not included remain valuable for reference. That Enoch was not included has little bearing on its strength or truth and it has long since been included in many of the Fathers' sermons. It isn't canon. But it is referred to by Our Lord, and as such, carries great weight. Your casual dismissal of it is quite telling of you.
-
.
This thread exploded and I couldn't keep up with it. I don't have all day to read the forum.
.
So having missed most of the pages I just now found the one with this fantasy post, above, on it where happenby demonstrates her obsession with fantasy like Star Trek and war stories (perhaps from watching too many WWII movies) and now I see this goes a long way to explaining what her obsession is with the fantasy of flat-earthism. It's a lot like Starship Enterprise or McHale's Navy.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcO7NukTTM0
.
Parker played by Tim Conway, who also co-authored the script.
.
Poor Neil has zero sense of humor. Friends and neighbors would admit he's got quite a mean streak.
-
That is false. Only included in the canon were the most necessary books. Many not included remain valuable for reference. That Enoch was not included has little bearing on its strength or truth and it has long since been included in many of the Fathers' sermons. It isn't canon. But it is referred to by Our Lord, and as such, carries great weight. Your casual dismissal of it is quite telling of you.
This is your wishful thinking. Writings carry the weight that the Church says they do. Because it is not in the Canon, we know the Book of Enoch is not inspired, non-authoritative, and fallible. It is just a normal book. There is no Church teaching that it carries a special status. Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It influenced not only later Jєωιѕн apocrypha (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm), but has left its imprint on the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) and the works of the early Fathers. The canonical Epistle of St. Jude (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08542b.htm), in verses 14, 15 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/jud001.htm), explicitly quotes from the Book of Henoch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm); the citation is found in the Ethiopic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05566a.htm) version in verses 9 and 4 of the first chapter. There are probable traces of the Henoch literature in other portions of the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm).
Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Jude. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Henoch as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm), Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm), Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm), and even St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view.
This book had so little value that it disappeared for centuries, until a manuscript was discovered in the 1700s. Do you really think the Church would lose a book she considered valuable?
Some of the Fathers thought it was Scripture, but there were wrong. The Fathers are not infallible unless they teach unanimously on a matter of faith. Some Fathers were wrong about Enoch. Some Fathers were wrong about the earth being flat.
-
This is your wishful thinking. Writings carry the weight that the Church says they do. Because it is not in the Canon, we know the Book of Enoch is not inspired, non-authoritative, and fallible. It is just a normal book. There is no Church teaching that it carries a special status. Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
This book had so little value that it disappeared for centuries, until a manuscript was discovered in the 1700s. Do you really think the Church would lose a book she considered valuable?
Some of the Fathers thought it was Scripture, but there were wrong. The Fathers are not infallible unless they teach unanimously on a matter of faith. Some Fathers were wrong about Enoch. Some Fathers were wrong about the earth being flat.
Empty words.
-
Empty words.
.
I realize you're attempt to bury the relevant posts are consistent with your reluctance to observe the truth of God's creation.
.
But even so, it would be reticent of me to pass up the chance to remind everyone else, at least, that tonight's moon proclaims a truth for all to see, that is, those who want to know the truth and are willing to 1) open their eyes and look, and 2) think about what God's truth has to tell them in their higher capacity to think about what their eyes can see by looking.
.
The moon quickly approaches its first quarter phase, with its illumination by the sun tonight at 29%, for all with eyes to see.
.
The "Cheshire cat" smile we saw Friday and Saturday evenings is now becoming more like a big smiley grin in the sky.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.spreadshirtmedia.com%2Fimage-server%2Fv1%2Fmp%2Fproducts%2FP111414920MPC122298726%2Fviews%2F1%2Cwidth%3D378%2Cheight%3D378%2CappearanceId%3D1%2CbackgroundColor%3DE8E8E8%2CmodelId%3D115%2Ccrop%3Dlist%2Cversion%3D1512126583%2Fsmiley-face-grin-2c-2012-t-shirts-men-s-premium-t-shirt.jpg&sp=91d0c779d4c8a0008ceb0a08d79de95e)
.
With the moon showing this appearance, with two upturned points as if it could hold water in its basin (so to speak) we can well take a moment to pause and think about how the sun could possibly be making this shape of illumination with such stark clarity and profound consistency for all with eyes to see.
.
The question to ask, for those who would know the truth, is this: "Where is the sun, to be illuminating the moon like that?"
.
Where is the sun?
.
Is the sun on its way around the other side of the "flat" earth as the flat-earthers are wont to claim when it's convenient?
.
Or, which is more likely the case, is it suddenly INCONVENIENT for flat-earthers to say the sun is whipping around behind Japan and China about now, shining its light over the vast "flatness" of the northern hemisflat (flat-earth alternative vocabulary for hemisphere), so as to produce a partially illuminated moon from a vast distance even though it somehow (inexplicably) can't manage to shine any light on mountaintops, flying aircraft, clouds or what-have-you. It only shines on the moon, okay?
.
Uhhh.............. but wait.............. If the sun is only shining on the moon from a close range, as flat-earthers are wont to claim, then why do we see the BOTTOM of the moon, the part closest to Earth, illuminated, and not the side of the moon that faces Asia, above where the sun (they say) is currently located?
.
Or, which is more likely, is the sun not currently located close by the earth at all? Perhaps the sun is truly over Asia, but is so very FAR AWAY from Asia that it is shining not on the north side of the moon but on the bottom of the moon?
.
Okay, well, maybe it is really far away from the earth, but how does that explain the fact that the moon is illuminated on the bottom and not on the northern side, in the direction of Asia?
.
The final flaw in the flat-earthers' hypothesis is the shape of the earth. For if the earth is "flat" as they say it is, then the moon's appearance makes no sense. But if the earth is spherical (not necessarily a precise sphere but generally spherical in shape, about like a bowling ball which is really far from perfectly spherical but close enough for the sake of our discussion), AND the sun is at an enormous distance away from Earth, THEN the fact that the moon appears as it does in the sky tonight suddenly makes perfect sense.
.
-
Empty words.
.
Oh, I almost forgot to ask. Are you aware that you are imitating the enemies of the Church with those two words?
.
That was the typical response to any serious theological question asked of Friederich Nietzsche, for example.
.
Nietzsche's the one who thought he was so clever by announcing that "God is dead." Then Nietzsche died.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F410NIaa-94L.jpg&sp=b8b5f0a7a350ef843e2fbe523394eec1)
-
.
Whatever has become of WholeTradFoods anyway?
.
He went ahead and started this ridiculous thread, in which the OP presumes to know my intentions (but fails) and then WTF, he disappears!
.
Too scared to face up to the fact that he got too close to a hornet's nest? or what?
.
In fact, his last post in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589544/#msg589544) is the last post he made on CI!
.
-
.
Whatever has become of WholeTradFoods anyway?
.
He went ahead and started this ridiculous thread, in which the OP presumes to know my intentions (but fails) and then WTF, he disappears!
.
Too scared to face up to the fact that he got too close to a hornet's nest? or what?
.
In fact, his last post in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg589544/#msg589544) is the last post he made on CI!
.
You wrote a rather scathing post towards him after he apologized (although apparently before you had seen the apology.) Perhaps he was hurt or offended by this. He realized that starting the thread was inappropriate and said he was sorry. It seemed like you were ignoring or rejecting that.
Please consider sending him a PM and trying to make things right with him. He is still a fellow Catholic whatever he thinks of the shape of the earth.
-
Yes it is harmful to proclaim the earth is flat. It causes scandal. St. Augustine wrote about what happens when Catholics speak against well-known facts concerning "the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world":
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
Dictionaries give definitions for flat-earther like, "A person who believes or advocates an outlandish, discredited theory; a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth despite overwhelming evidence."
When Catholics become associated with this idea, it destroys our credibility, making us less able to communicate truths necessary for salvation.
I am grateful that Neil keeps posting against flat earth, making it clear that only a small minority of trads accept a flat earth.
Keep up the good work, Neil.
.
I somehow missed this post before. Thank you, Jaynek, for the reference. It's nice to see that St. Augustine already explained the problem with promoting false principles of our natural world, like flat-earthism.
.
The vast evidence of the sphericity of the earth is indeed overwhelming evidence.
.
Flat-earthism is an outlandish, discredited hypothesis only held by those who refuse to believe the evidence before us.
.
-
.
I somehow missed this post before. Thank you, Jaynek, for the reference. It's nice to see that St. Augustine already explained the problem with promoting false principles of our natural world, like flat-earthism.
.
The vast evidence of the sphericity of the earth is indeed overwhelming evidence.
.
Flat-earthism is an outlandish, discredited hypothesis only held by those who refuse to believe the evidence before us.
.
(https://i.imgur.com/bd96eRz.jpg)
-
[...another inanity from the dustbin...]
.
Troll.
-
.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg590567/#msg590567
.
This is the post that elicited a furor of knee-jerk reactions from the flat-earthers, NONE OF WHICH were substantive or constructive criticisms, BUT ALL OF WHICH were harried attempts to change the subject. But the moon doesn't seem to mind! No, the moon moves on in its course, regardless of the vicissitudes of man. Friday and Saturday gave us a small sliver of a waxing crescent, which came into view late afternoon and faced downward into the western horizon as the moon set in the early evening, as the almanac charts show. Sunday and Monday gave us a gradually increasing crescent, still facing downward toward the west, which came into view mid afternoon and set later in the evening as the almanac shows. Yesterday gave us a nearly completed quarter crescent, which came into view early afternoon and set even later as the almanac shows. Finally, today, Wednesday January 24th, 2018, we have the quarter moon in all its clarity and perfection, coming to full view in the early afternoon well before sunset, where everyone who has eyes to see and a mind willing to learn the truth can observe what God has to teach us by His creation, as usual. This is the truth which once again, flat-earthers who cling to their golden-calf false-god of flat-earthism failed-hypothesis will refuse to see. Not even God Himself will force them to believe what is before their eyes, just as Our Lord would not force the scribes and Pharisees to see and know His miracles when He performed them in front of their faces. Perhaps He could have forced them, but He did not do so. Nor will He force the scoffers of today who simply refuse to see what His hand has wrought before our eyes.
.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac site shows this thumbnail for Saturday (yesterday):
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m042.jpg)
.
The waxing crescent moon had 13% illumination from the sun.
.
But the orientation of the real thing in the sky was rotated almost 90 degrees clockwise from that image.
.
What we saw in the sky yesterday evening was a "Cheshire cat smile."
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedenmanlife.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmooncrescent-714263.jpg&sp=faf1f58ce762ccae5e6418d12090fdc6)
.
This is extremely close to what was there. Rotate this about 3 degrees counterclockwise and that's just right.
.
There is a lot to learn from this fact.
.
What you see in this evening's sky is almost the same but with a little more moon illuminated.
.
7% more to be precise, as the Almanac shows, it's now (Sunday) at 20%.
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m052.jpg)
(Sunday's Almanac thumbnail for 20%)
.
The moon as it appeared Monday was like this (29%):
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTqUgVxEwdrHt6v3ALQ-6RopzlXeob_wthbLvoyJaVt-769ttTg&sp=96d54ab29d1b860ee8f799d2f2480765&anticache=764710)
.
To this can be added the view of the quarter moon which will be plainly visible for all to see at 2:20 pm this afternoon.
-
.
Today's quarter moon will reach the quarter phase at 2:20 pm Pacific time (1:20 pm Mountain, 12:20 pm Central, 11:20 am Eastern)
The moon's phases are always visible every day all over the world at the same moment .......
.
This is how the moon will appear as it sets in the west this evening:
-
.
Troll.
(https://i.imgur.com/hX66sc0.jpg)
-
The moon's phases are always visible every day all over the world at the same moment .......
? ? ?
the MOON isn't visible all over the world at the same moment.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/hX66sc0.jpg)
What do you mean the stars are the same? They move around.
-
.
The moon sets after midnight tonight.
.
-
What do you mean the stars are the same? They move around.
.
Don't tell me: you're attempting to communicate with a lunatic?
.
His posts are not intended to accomplish anything but making noise. He ought to be banned.
.
-
? ? ?
the MOON isn't visible all over the world at the same moment.
.
Wherever the moon is visible (over half the world at any time) the moon's phase is visible in the same phase.
.
Of course, if the earth were "flat" it ought to be visible all over the world, but the flat-earthers like to dance around that conundrum like Indians doing a fire-ant dance.
.
-
What do you mean the stars are the same? They move around.
We see the same alignment of the stars as they move around us from anywhere on the flat earth. ;D
-
.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg590567/#msg590567
.
This is the post that elicited a furor of knee-jerk reactions from the flat-earthers, NONE OF WHICH were substantive or constructive criticisms, BUT ALL OF WHICH were harried attempts to change the subject. But the moon doesn't seem to mind! No, the moon moves on in its course, regardless of the vicissitudes of man. Friday and Saturday gave us a small sliver of a waxing crescent, which came into view late afternoon and faced downward into the western horizon as the moon set in the early evening, as the almanac charts show. Sunday and Monday gave us a gradually increasing crescent, still facing downward toward the west, which came into view mid afternoon and set later in the evening as the almanac shows. Yesterday gave us a nearly completed quarter crescent, which came into view early afternoon and set even later as the almanac shows. Finally, today, Wednesday January 24th, 2018, we have the quarter moon in all its clarity and perfection, coming to full view in the early afternoon well before sunset, where everyone who has eyes to see and a mind willing to learn the truth can observe what God has to teach us by His creation, as usual. This is the truth which once again, flat-earthers who cling to their golden-calf false-god of flat-earthism failed-hypothesis will refuse to see. Not even God Himself will force them to believe what is before their eyes, just as Our Lord would not force the scribes and Pharisees to see and know His miracles when He performed them in front of their faces. Perhaps He could have forced them, but He did not do so. Nor will He force the scoffers of today who simply refuse to see what His hand has wrought before our eyes.
.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac site shows this thumbnail for Saturday (yesterday):
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m042.jpg)
.
The waxing crescent moon had 13% illumination from the sun.
.
But the orientation of the real thing in the sky was rotated almost 90 degrees clockwise from that image.
.
What we saw in the sky yesterday evening was a "Cheshire cat smile."
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedenmanlife.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmooncrescent-714263.jpg&sp=faf1f58ce762ccae5e6418d12090fdc6)
.
This is extremely close to what was there. Rotate this about 3 degrees counterclockwise and that's just right.
.
There is a lot to learn from this fact.
.
What you see in this evening's sky is almost the same but with a little more moon illuminated.
.
7% more to be precise, as the Almanac shows, it's now (Sunday) at 20%.
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m052.jpg)
(Sunday's Almanac thumbnail for 20%)
.
The moon as it appeared Monday was like this (29%):
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTqUgVxEwdrHt6v3ALQ-6RopzlXeob_wthbLvoyJaVt-769ttTg&sp=96d54ab29d1b860ee8f799d2f2480765&anticache=764710)
.
To this can be added the view of the quarter moon which will be plainly visible for all to see at 2:20 pm this afternoon.
.
When you see the moon 4 hours from now in the USA, it will appear as below in the sky. In the eastern states it will be 5:20 pm, Central time will be 4:20, Mountain time will be 3:20 and Pacific time will be 2:20 pm.
.
Consequently, the moon will be rotated clockwise about 12 degrees for each time zone going east from Pacific time. I don't have the software necessary to rotate an image in increments of 12 degrees, so you'll have to imagine that part!
.
The moon today at 2:20 pm Pacific Standard Time (UTC - 8 )
-
.
When you see the moon as shown, above (or below!), you can use a styrofoam block (with 90 degree sides) or a pizza box on top of a fence post (for example) to measure the angle between the sun and the moon.
.
Never look at the sun directly. To avoid doing so, you can see the shadow of the pizza box along its side to determine when the side of the box (or styrofoam block) is aligned toward the sun. While holding the box (or block) in that position, sight along the perpendicular side of the box pointed toward the moon. You have to re-check the alignment with the sun and then re-position the box (or block) several times until you get them both pointing correctly at the same time, one side toward the sun and the other side toward the moon.
.
Once you have both sun and moon aligned you can approximate how closely they are in line with the sides of your box (or block).
.
You don't need to have any fancy measuring device or optical instruments to perform this experiment.
.
-
.
Why bother checking the angle between the sun and moon at the moment of the quarter moon phase?
.
I'm glad you asked!
.
When the moon reaches its quarter phase, the positions of the sun, moon and earth in space form a triangle. Any three points in space form a triangle on a plane, but what kind of triangle they make is another matter.
.
In this case, the triangle is a particularly useful kind of triangle. When the moon reaches its quarter phase, it occupies the 90-degree corner of a right triangle. The earth then is at the other corner where the angle is large.
.
But the sun is at the third corner where the angle is unknown.
.
Since we have only one unknown angle, we can find out what it is by observing the magnitudes of the two known angles.
.
We know the moon's angle (the angle between the sun and earth as viewed from the moon) is 90 degrees because it is the moment of the quarter moon. And we know what the earth's angle is (the angle between the moon and sun as viewed from earth) because we're estimating it with our pizza box (or block of styrofoam).
.
The sum of the interior angles of any triangle adds up to 180 degrees.
.
Therefore, 90 + (observed angle) + (unknown angle) = 180
.
Consequently, 180 - {90 + (observed angle)} = unknown angle
.
Simplifying, 90 - (observed angle) = unknown angle
.
In other words, we can estimate the angle (as observed from the sun) between the earth and moon using this experiment.
.
-
.
Don't tell me: you're attempting to communicate with a lunatic?
.
His posts are not intended to accomplish anything but making noise. He ought to be banned.
.
I suspect that Matthew does not read anything in the Flat Earth subforum. In that case, if anything worthy of banning happens here, Matthew won't know unless people inform him of it.
-
I suspect that Matthew does not read anything in the Flat Earth subforum. In that case, if anything worthy of banning happens here, Matthew won't know unless people inform him of it.
Have you ever complained to Matthew about the flat-earthers here?
-
I am not a scientist so this might sound silly. If the round earth is in space who can say what is up and what is down?
.
Anywhere in outer space, "down" is toward the planet Earth, and "up" is away from planet Earth, because "up and down" is an earth-centered principle, and therefore without Earth these words lose their context.
.
One could argue about an astronaut standing on the moon or some other planet and speaking of "up" or "down" as if in context of being on that other large body of matter not the earth. Well, we are not on such a planet or moon so we don't have to be concerned with that. Some say we'll never be on such a place, so it's a matter of science fiction, practically speaking.
.
Therefore Earth remains the central figure of what "up" and "down" means.
.
-
Have you ever complained to Matthew about the flat-earthers here?
.
Few members have been the subject of as many complaints as the flat-earthers have, like you, Meg, actually, that's why the child forum was established, to attempt to control the volume and frequency of complaints.
.
-
Have you ever complained to Matthew about the flat-earthers here?
Jayne,
Since you did not respond to the question, I have to assume that you have complained to Matthew about flat-earthers. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Funny thing is, I had wondered if you had been complaining, even before you wrote that post saying that people should complain about certain posters. Complaining is a Jєωιѕн thing to do.
BTW, I have never complained to Matthew about the globe-earthers here. That would be a whiney-baby thing to do.
-
Jayne,
Since you did not respond to the question, I have to assume that you have complained to Matthew about flat-earthers. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The last time I responded to one of your questions, you told me you weren't interested in my answers. I therefore decided not to do it any more. You assume far too much about a great many things.
-
The last time I responded to one of your questions, you told me you weren't interested in my answers. I therefore decided not to do it any more. You assume far too much about a great many things.
That's fine. I already know the answer.
-
That's fine. I already know the answer.
Just like you "know" the earth is flat.
-
BTW, I have never complained to Matthew about the globe-earthers here. That would be a whiney-baby thing to do.
Plus, you know that would not get you anywhere.
-
Plus, you know that would not get you anywhere.
No, that's not the reason.
I'm not a coward. That's the reason.
-
His posts are not intended to accomplish anything but making noise. He ought to be banned.
I agree. He's very trollish in his forum behavior. I believe he should be banned. Not for his advocacy of flat earth but because of his overall behavior and attitude. I had hoped that the more reasonable of the flat earth proponents would disavow him and distance themselves from him, but they won't do that because they consider him an ally of sorts.
-
No, that's not the reason.
I'm not a coward. That's the reason.
No, I was not suggesting that, but that you know it would be a complete and total waste of time to complain to Matthew. That would be like complaining to him about someone posting material from Bishop Williamson.
-
No, I was not suggesting that, but that you know it would be a complete and total waste of time to complain to Matthew. That would be like complaining to him about someone posting material from Bishop Williamson.
It never occurred to me to complain to Matthew about globe-earthers. Do you think I'm lying?
-
It never occurred to me to complain to Matthew about globe-earthers. Do you think I'm lying?
:facepalm:
We're OBVIOUSLY speaking hypothetically as evidenced by the "would be" in your statement: "That would be a whiney-baby thing to do."
-
The last time I responded to one of your questions, you told me you weren't interested in my answers. I therefore decided not to do it any more. You assume far too much about a great many things.
That's a yes.
-
:facepalm:
We're OBVIOUSLY speaking hypothetically as evidenced by the "would be" in your statement: "That would be a whiney-baby thing to do."
.
ANYTHING to steer clear of the discussion at hand -- obfuscate, confuse, divert.
.
Staying on topic is FAR too uncomfortable for flat-earthers.
.
-
It never occurred to me to complain to Matthew about globe-earthers. Do you think I'm lying?
There is no need to complain to Matthew about globe earthers. ;D Globe earthers discredit themselves all by themselves and even as a group. It is very fun and entertaining to watch globe earthers continue to self-destruct as a herd of indoctrinated lemmings. :popcorn:
-
.
ANYTHING to steer clear of the discussion at hand -- obfuscate, confuse, divert.
.
Staying on topic is FAR too uncomfortable for flat-earthers.
.
Stay on topic Neil Obstat.
(https://i.imgur.com/bd96eRz.jpg)
-
Come on guys, this has become petty. There is no reason a debate should devolve into in this.
-
It never occurred to me to complain to Matthew about globe-earthers.
.
Perhaps the day will come when you reconsider that.
.
Or, like you-know-who, try to change the topic while accusing others of not staying on topic.
.
Stay on topic Neil Obstat.
-
Come on guys, this has become petty. There is no reason a debate should devolve into in this.
Two of the most vocal of globe-earthers (Neil and Jayne) began talking about the banning of flat-earthers. Not this would not bother you of course, but I felt a need to defend flat-earthers. If it devolves, then so be it. Sometimes it can't be helped.
-
Speaking of "the topic," where was I?
.
Oh, right........
.
.
.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg590567/#msg590567 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg590567/#msg590567)
.
This is the post that elicited a furor of knee-jerk reactions from the flat-earthers, NONE OF WHICH were substantive or constructive criticisms, BUT ALL OF WHICH were harried attempts to change the subject. But the moon doesn't seem to mind! No, the moon moves on in its course, regardless of the vicissitudes of man. Friday and Saturday gave us a small sliver of a waxing crescent, which came into view late afternoon and faced downward into the western horizon as the moon set in the early evening, as the almanac charts show. Sunday and Monday gave us a gradually increasing crescent, still facing downward toward the west, which came into view mid afternoon and set later in the evening as the almanac shows. Yesterday gave us a nearly completed quarter crescent, which came into view early afternoon and set even later as the almanac shows. Finally, today, Wednesday January 24th, 2018, we have the quarter moon in all its clarity and perfection, coming to full view in the early afternoon well before sunset, where everyone who has eyes to see and a mind willing to learn the truth can observe what God has to teach us by His creation, as usual. This is the truth which once again, flat-earthers who cling to their golden-calf false-god of flat-earthism failed-hypothesis will refuse to see. Not even God Himself will force them to believe what is before their eyes, just as Our Lord would not force the scribes and Pharisees to see and know His miracles when He performed them in front of their faces. Perhaps He could have forced them, but He did not do so. Nor will He force the scoffers of today who simply refuse to see what His hand has wrought before our eyes.
.
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac site shows this thumbnail for Saturday (yesterday):
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m042.jpg)
.
The waxing crescent moon had 13% illumination from the sun.
.
But the orientation of the real thing in the sky was rotated almost 90 degrees clockwise from that image.
.
What we saw in the sky yesterday evening was a "Cheshire cat smile."
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedenmanlife.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmooncrescent-714263.jpg&sp=faf1f58ce762ccae5e6418d12090fdc6)
.
This is extremely close to what was there. Rotate this about 3 degrees counterclockwise and that's just right.
.
There is a lot to learn from this fact.
.
What you see in this evening's sky is almost the same but with a little more moon illuminated.
.
7% more to be precise, as the Almanac shows, it's now (Sunday) at 20%.
.
(https://almanac.s3.amazonaws.com/moon/images/m052.jpg)
(Sunday's Almanac thumbnail for 20%)
.
The moon as it appeared Monday was like this (29%):
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTqUgVxEwdrHt6v3ALQ-6RopzlXeob_wthbLvoyJaVt-769ttTg&sp=96d54ab29d1b860ee8f799d2f2480765&anticache=764710)
.
To this can be added the view of the quarter moon which will be plainly visible for all to see at 2:20 pm this afternoon.
.
When you see the moon 4 hours from now in the USA, it will appear as below in the sky. In the eastern states it will be 5:20 pm, Central time will be 4:20, Mountain time will be 3:20 and Pacific time will be 2:20 pm.
.
Consequently, the moon will be rotated clockwise about 12 degrees for each time zone going east from Pacific time. I don't have the software necessary to rotate an image in increments of 12 degrees, so you'll have to imagine that part!
.
The moon today at 2:20 pm Pacific Standard Time (UTC - 8 )
.
The moon today at 2:20 pm --------------- RIGHT NOW:
-
Two of the most vocal of globe-earthers (Neil and Jayne) began talking about the banning of flat-earthers. Not this would not bother you of course, but I felt a need to defend flat-earthers. If it devolves, then so be it. Sometimes it can't be helped.
We were discussing one specific flat-earther who clearly deserves to be banned for the way he posts, not for believing in flat earth. But you go ahead and imagine you are part of a persecuted minority. And imagine that I complain about you all to Matthew. It fits in with the rest of your alternate reality.
-
.
Why bother checking the angle between the sun and moon at the moment of the quarter moon phase?
.
I'm glad you asked!
.
When the moon reaches its quarter phase, the positions of the sun, moon and earth in space form a triangle. Any three points in space form a triangle on a plane, but what kind of triangle they make is another matter.
.
In this case, the triangle is a particularly useful kind of triangle. When the moon reaches its quarter phase, it occupies the 90-degree corner of a right triangle. The earth then is at the other corner where the angle is large.
.
But the sun is at the third corner where the angle is unknown.
.
Since we have only one unknown angle, we can find out what it is by observing the magnitudes of the two known angles.
.
We know the moon's angle (the angle between the sun and earth as viewed from the moon) is 90 degrees because it is the moment of the quarter moon. And we know what the earth's angle is (the angle between the moon and sun as viewed from earth) because we're estimating it with our pizza box (or block of styrofoam).
.
The sum of the interior angles of any triangle adds up to 180 degrees.
.
Therefore, 90 + (observed angle) + (unknown angle) = 180
.
Consequently, 180 - {90 + (observed angle)} = unknown angle
.
Simplifying, 90 - (observed angle) = unknown angle
.
In other words, we can estimate the angle (as observed from the sun) between the earth and moon using this experiment.
.
.
A really important point bears repeating -- especially when the system deletes a previous quote when this post is quoted.
.
.
When the moon reaches its quarter phase, the positions of the sun, moon and earth in space form a triangle. Any three points in space form a triangle on a plane, but what kind of triangle they make is another matter.
.
In this case, the triangle is a particularly useful kind of triangle. When the moon reaches its quarter phase, it occupies the 90-degree corner of a right triangle. The earth then is at the other corner where the angle is large.
.
But the sun is at the third corner where the angle is unknown.
.
Since we have only one unknown angle, we can find out what it is by observing the magnitudes of the two known angles.
.
We know the moon's angle (the angle between the sun and earth as viewed from the moon) is 90 degrees because it is the moment of the quarter moon. And we know what the earth's angle is (the angle between the moon and sun as viewed from earth) because we're estimating it with our pizza box (or block of styrofoam).
.
The sum of the interior angles of any triangle adds up to 180 degrees.
.
Therefore, 90 + (observed angle) + (unknown angle) = 180
.
Consequently, 180 - {90 + (observed angle)} = unknown angle
.
Simplifying, 90 - (observed angle) = unknown angle
.
In other words, we can estimate the angle (as observed from the sun) between the earth and moon using this experiment.
.
This moon-and-sun in the sky right now is really remarkable.
.
I've never seen such an excellent example in plain view.
.
The moon is at 10:00 and the sun is at 2:00 so they're both very obvious and clear.
.
And the angle between them has never been easier to measure.
.
-
We were discussing one specific flat-earther who clearly deserves to be banned for the way he posts, not for believing in flat earth. But you go ahead and imagine you are part of a persecuted minority. And imagine that I complain about you all to Matthew. It fits in with the rest of your alternate reality.
You can't handle flat earth evidence because it destroys your false world-view.
-
.
The evidence is right there if you can bother to look.
.
The angle between the sun and the moon is so close to 90 degrees it's hard to know for sure without more fancy equipment.
.
But after checking several times it becomes evident that the difference between the angle observed and 90 degrees is very small.
.
It's less than one degree.
.
In fact, the diameter of the moon, as viewed from earth, is just a little less than the amount of difference.
.
Therefore, the angle is about 89 degrees, perhaps a little more. But certainly not less than 89 degrees.
.
So, do the math.
.
Simplifying, 90 - (observed angle) = unknown angle
.
In other words, we can estimate the angle (as observed from the sun) between the earth and moon using this experiment.
.
90 - 89 (+?) = 1 degree, or perhaps less.
.
The angle between the earth and moon as viewed from the sun is at most 1 degree, and probably less than one degree.
.
-
.
Consequently, the triangle made by the earth, moon and sun in space is a right triangle with a very long hypotenuse.
.
The hypotenuse is the side that represents the earth to the sun.
.
It is a right triangle with a very small opposite side.
.
The opposite side is the side of this right triangle opposite the angle where the sun is.
.
With simple trig functions we can estimate a range for the relative distance between earth to moon vs. earth to sun.
.
-
.
Consequently, the triangle made by the earth, moon and sun in space is a right triangle with a very long hypotenuse.
.
The hypotenuse is the side that represents the earth to the sun.
.
It is a right triangle with a very small opposite side.
.
The opposite side is the side of this right triangle opposite the angle where the sun is.
.
With simple trig functions we can estimate a range for the relative distance between earth to moon vs. earth to sun.
.
.
We can place this triangle in standard position, such that the sun's point is at the origin (where the x and y axes meet) which is called (0, 0).
.
Use standard 8-1/2 x 11 graph paper with 1/4 inch squares, and a hard surface like stone or hardwood for a table. Select a hard pencil, like 3H or 4H drafting lead, which is harder than "number 2" and sharpen it well to a fine point. Use a regular 12" ruler, with a straight edge.
.
We can go out some arbitrary distance, say 10 inches on the x-axis, and call that the moon's location.
.
Then we can make a vertical line up some arbitrary distance, say 8 inches up, and that is where we draw a line from (10, 0) vertically to (10, 8 ). Follow the lines on the graph paper. But we're just drawing a line because we don't know yet where on this line segment Earth is located, but it is definitely there somewhere.
.
In standard position, a right triangle is easy to work with.
.
The sun's point we can call angle A, the moon's point angle C and the earth's point angle B.
.
So far, we can only plot A and C. We have to wait for B.
.
Then the measure of angle A, m(A), plus the measure of angle B, m(B), plus the measure of angle C, m(C), is equal to 180 degrees.
.
m(A) + m(B) + m(C) = 180
.
Solving for m(A) we get:
180 - m(B) - m(C) = m(A)
.
Plugging in our knowns we find out:
180 - 89 - 90 = 1 degree. That is the maximum of our range.
.
The minimum we said is when angle B is about 1/2 degree more, or 89.5 degrees:
180 - 89.5 - 90 = 0.5 degree, the minimum.
.
Therefore, angle A is somewhere between 1 and 1/2 degree, very likely. This is just an approximation.
.
So in our standard position, using a protractor, we can draw in the hypotenuse AB, by making two graphs.
.
The first graph will have the measure of A at 1 degree and the second graph the measure of A will be 1/2 degree.
.
So you can make the second graph on the same sheet of paper, just go up 4 inches and draw a new x-axis across the page.
They use the same y-axis and the same vertical line for CB.
.
It turns out that on an 8-1/2 x 11 piece of graph paper, with AC drawn near the edge of the paper, the vertical line where we will plot B barely fits on the page, with 1/4 inch to spare at each end.
.
Starting at the origin (0, 0) and measuring with a protractor one degree counterclockwise, the hypotenuse must be drawn very carefully because it's very close to the x-axis.
.
The place where it intersects the opposite side (opposite from angle A, rising parallel with the y-axis up the page) is only about 1/8 inch above the moon's point C!
.
And that is the MAXIMUM for how far it can be from C.
.
In the second graph, drawing the hypotenuse at 1/2 degree counterclockwise from AC gives us point B at a MINIMUM of 1/16 inch above C.
.
-
.
Meanwhile, the moon yesterday evening was still up at midnight and didn't set until half past -- just as the almanac said it would.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.purch.com%2Fw%2F660%2FaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA1My8xNDkvb3JpZ2luYWwvMTYwMjEwLUdhaGVydHktUXVhcnRlci5qcGc%3D&sp=e5e3021f90930762c32a39f903f6656c)
.
BTW any view of the moon, whether through a telescope or naked eye, the diameter of the moon is 1/2 degree.
.
So one degree, in the post above, is equivalent to two moon diameters and 0.5 degree is the same as one moon diameter.
.
The size of the moon can be used against stars to approximate the angular distance between stars or planets.
.
Whenever the moon is in the quarter phase it rises and sets with the same positions of the sun.
.
The first quarter moon sets at (astronomical) midnight and rises at noon.
.
The last quarter moon rises at midnight and sets at noon.
.
The sun and moon are always at right angles when the moon passes the quarter phase.
.
Furthermore, none of this would be true if the earth were "flat."
.
-
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/flat-earth-memes-52-6.jpg)
-
We can place this triangle in standard position, such that the sun's point is at the origin (where the x and y axes meet) which is called (0, 0).
O.K. so far, altho' I suppose that some geocentrics would be starting another fit.
Use standard 8-1/2 x 11 graph paper with 1/4 inch squares, and a hard surface like stone or hardwood for a table. Select a hard pencil, like 3H or 4H drafting lead, which is harder than "number 2" and sharpen it well to a fine point. Use a regular 12" ruler, with a straight edge.
So many outright irrelevant specs! Who in CathInfo do you think is really your audience for a posting teaching geometry?
Good grief! Should readers take it as, um, gospel truth, that if the student uses a number 2 pencil on 1/10 inch squares [†], that none of your directions would work? Which you expressed entirely as integer measurements? I see that you didn't conclude by insisting that the student borrow an industrial caliper to judge the results.
In standard position, a right triangle is easy to work with. The sun's point we can call angle A, the moon's point angle C and the earth's point angle B.
Arrrgh! I sure hope that you're not being paid to be the professional technology teacher that some CathInfo members have guessed you to be! Way back when the 1960s advanced into the 1970s, the more reflective computer programmers recognized that arbitrary unnecessary detail was a bad thing for composing programs that worked--not merely "most of the time"--but reliably. Haven't math-intensive teachers figured out after all these years that it's directly relevant to learning by their students?
I trust that in reflective moments during your life, you have noticed that the key words "sun", "earth", and "moon" do not start with the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’? I'm taking it, um, on faith, that even the 1917 Code of Canon Law doesn't prevent you from explaining the geometry in terms of angle S, angle M, and angle E.
And while I'm on pet peeves, would you please stop reposting nearly the entirety of content that you'd already posted only a page or 2 earlier in exactly the same topic? [‡]
-------
Note †: Or using a drafting triangle on row-striped 132-column line-printer paper? O.K., maybe one would need to go to a computer-history museum nowadays to get any of that once-ubiquitous paper.
Note ‡: I'm hoping that you're not incorrigible, in contrast to a ban-worthy member who exhibits obnoxious troll-like repetitiveness in this topic.
-
.
We can place this triangle in standard position, such that the sun's point is at the origin (where the x and y axes meet) which is called (0, 0).
.
Use standard 8-1/2 x 11 graph paper with 1/4 inch squares, and a hard surface like stone or hardwood for a table. Select a hard pencil, like 3H or 4H drafting lead, which is harder than "number 2" and sharpen it well to a fine point. Use a regular 12" ruler, with a straight edge.
.
We can go out some arbitrary distance, say 10 inches on the x-axis, and call that the moon's location.
.
Then we can make a vertical line up some arbitrary distance, say 8 inches up, and that is where we draw a line from (10, 0) vertically to (10, 8 ). Follow the lines on the graph paper. But we're just drawing a line because we don't know yet where on this line segment Earth is located, but it is definitely there somewhere.
.
In standard position, a right triangle is easy to work with.
.
The sun's point we can call angle A, the moon's point angle C and the earth's point angle B.
.
So far, we can only plot A and C. We have to wait for B.
.
Then the measure of angle A, m(A), plus the measure of angle B, m(B), plus the measure of angle C, m(C), is equal to 180 degrees.
.
m(A) + m(B) + m(C) = 180
.
Solving for m(A) we get:
180 - m(B) - m(C) = m(A)
.
Plugging in our knowns we find out:
180 - 89 - 90 = 1 degree. That is the maximum of our range.
.
The minimum we said is when angle B is about 1/2 degree more, or 89.5 degrees:
180 - 89.5 - 90 = 0.5 degree, the minimum.
.
Therefore, angle A is somewhere between 1 and 1/2 degree, very likely. This is just an approximation.
.
So in our standard position, using a protractor, we can draw in the hypotenuse AB, by making two graphs.
.
The first graph will have the measure of A at 1 degree and the second graph the measure of A will be 1/2 degree.
.
So you can make the second graph on the same sheet of paper, just go up 4 inches and draw a new x-axis across the page.
They use the same y-axis and the same vertical line for CB.
.
It turns out that on an 8-1/2 x 11 piece of graph paper, with AC drawn near the edge of the paper, the vertical line where we will plot B barely fits on the page, with 1/4 inch to spare at each end.
.
Starting at the origin (0, 0) and measuring with a protractor one degree counterclockwise, the hypotenuse must be drawn very carefully because it's very close to the x-axis.
.
The place where it intersects the opposite side (opposite from angle A, rising parallel with the y-axis up the page) is only about 1/8 inch above the moon's point C!
.
And that is the MAXIMUM for how far it can be from C.
.
In the second graph, drawing the hypotenuse at 1/2 degree counterclockwise from AC gives us point B at a MINIMUM of 1/16 inch above C.
.
Your angles are irrelevant and inaccurate since earth is a plane and not a planet in "space."
-
O.K. so far, altho' I suppose that some geocentrics would be starting another fit.
So many outright irrelevant specs! Who in CathInfo do you think is really your audience for a posting teaching geometry?
Good grief! Should readers take it as, um, gospel truth, that if the student uses a number 2 pencil on 1/10 inch squares [†], that none of your directions would work? Which you expressed entirely as integer measurements? I see that you didn't conclude by insisting that the student borrow an industrial caliper to judge the results.
Arrrgh! I sure hope that you're not being paid to be the professional technology teacher that some CathInfo members have guessed you to be! Way back when the 1960s advanced into the 1970s, the more reflective computer programmers recognized that arbitrary unnecessary detail was a bad thing for composing programs that worked--not merely "most of the time"--but reliably. Haven't math-intensive teachers figured out after all these years that it's directly relevant to learning by their students?
I trust that in reflective moments during your life, you have noticed that the key words "sun", "earth", and "moon" do not start with the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’? I'm taking it, um, on faith, that even the 1917 Code of Canon Law doesn't prevent you from explaining the geometry in terms of angle S, angle M, and angle E.
And while I'm on pet peeves, would you please stop reposting nearly the entirety of content that you'd already posted only a page or 2 earlier in exactly the same topic? [‡]
-------
Note †: Or using a drafting triangle on row-striped 132-column line-printer paper? O.K., maybe one would need to go to a computer-history museum nowadays to get any of that once-ubiquitous paper.
Note ‡: I'm hoping that you're not incorrigible, in contrast to a ban-worthy member who exhibits obnoxious troll-like repetitiveness in this topic.
Bravo, Alligator, bravo!
-
O.K. so far, altho' I suppose that some geocentrics would be starting another fit.
.
If they're fitting away, they're keeping it to themselves. I suspect they're not bothering to read this.
.
They don't want to know the truth, after all. That would be too disturbing for their flat-earth hypothesis-worship.
.
So many outright irrelevant specs! Who in CathInfo do you think is really your audience for a posting teaching geometry?
Good grief! Should readers take it as, um, gospel truth, that if the student uses a number 2 pencil on 1/10 inch squares [†], that none of your directions would work? Which you expressed entirely as integer measurements? I see that you didn't conclude by insisting that the student borrow an industrial caliper to judge the results.
Arrrgh! I sure hope that you're not being paid to be the professional technology teacher that some CathInfo members have guessed you to be! Way back when the 1960s advanced into the 1970s, the more reflective computer programmers recognized that arbitrary unnecessary detail was a bad thing for composing programs that worked--not merely "most of the time"--but reliably. Haven't math-intensive teachers figured out after all these years that it's directly relevant to learning by their students?
I trust that in reflective moments during your life, you have noticed that the key words "sun", "earth", and "moon" do not start with the letters ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’? I'm taking it, um, on faith, that even the 1917 Code of Canon Law doesn't prevent you from explaining the geometry in terms of angle S, angle M, and angle E.
And while I'm on pet peeves, would you please stop reposting nearly the entirety of content that you'd already posted only a page or 2 earlier in exactly the same topic? [‡]
-------
Note †: Or using a drafting triangle on row-striped 132-column line-printer paper? O.K., maybe one would need to go to a computer-history museum nowadays to get any of that once-ubiquitous paper.
Note ‡: I'm hoping that you're not incorrigible, in contrast to a ban-worthy member who exhibits obnoxious troll-like repetitiveness in this topic.
.
Am I wrong to think all I have to do is forget about pencil grades and use S, M and E for angles and you'd be happy?
.
I said that 1/4 inch graph paper would be preferable for a reason, and that is, in America we're used to thinking in terms of 1/4 inch increments, not 1/10ths. Plus, every stationery store I've been in recently has 1/4 inch graph paper but very few have 1/10th inch. But hey, if you prefer to use tenth inch graph paper be my guest.
.
As for pencil grade, a number 2 pencil won't make a reliable line at this scale. You're going to need to re-sharpen it every inch or two. Is that what you like to do? Plus if you press too hard it will break the point and give a smudged line. I suspect you never took mechanical or architectural drafting in school. That would explain a lot. Are you aware that if you take a class in land surveying and use anything softer than 4H in your field notebook, you'll flunk the class? Good thing I warned you!
.
If you really want to use a #2 pencil, then it would be for a larger scale drawing, not an 8-1/2 x 11 page. You'll need to get a 3-foot long piece of paper, like for banner making, 8 or 10 inches wide, and you'll need a 3-foot long straight edge. Is that your preference? If so, then go for it, but don't expect that from other readers of this thread.
.
But rest assured, if you insist on a #2 pencil, and you don't bother to keep sharpening it, you won't be able to see the effect of this drawing, and that's what I'm trying to make understandable, because your line thickness will be greater than the diameter of the moon.
.
Anyway, go ahead and use your #2 pencil and tenth-inch graph paper if you like, and let me know what you get, okay?
.
-
Your angles are irrelevant and inaccurate since earth is a plane and not a planet in "space."
.
Your a priori fallacy is duly noted.
.
You know, when Columbus was looking for sponsors, some people told him he was going to fall off the edge of the earth.
.
Maybe those were your ancestors! :jester:
-
.
I have a book that describes the physics of a balance wheel used in watch making 120 years ago. The weight or mass of the balance wheel is significant regarding the period of the balance's oscillation. But a watch balance is functionally similar to a clock's pendulum, since they both regulate the speed of the hand movements, and the pendulum's weight or mass can be increased or decreased without having any effect on the pendulum's period of oscillation, and therefore the clock will keep the same time. However, increase the mass of a balance wheel without changing the balance spring, and the watch will run slower. Decrease its mass and the watch will run faster.
.
Here they are over a century ago, making watches and clocks, and they already were aware of something that today's flat-earthers fail to understand.
.
"The time in which a balance will vibrate cannot be predicated from its dimensions alone. A pendulum of a given length always vibrates in the same time as long as it is kept at the same distance from the center of the earth, because gravity, the force that impels it, is always the same; but the want of constancy in the force of the balance spring, that in watches and chronometers takes the place of gravity and governs the vibrations of the balance, is one of the chief difficulties of the timer. There is another point of difference between the pendulum and the balance. The time of vibration of the former is unaffected by its mass, because every increment of mass carries with it a proportional addition to the influence of gravity; but by adding to the mass of a balance, the strength of a balance spring is not increased at all, and therefore the vibrations of the balance become slower."
.
Every physics class that touches on the topic of the pendulum addresses this phenomenon, that adding to the mass or taking away from the mass of the pendulum does not change the pendulum's period of oscillation or "vibration" (as they said in England in 1900). If you want to change the period or time between each swing of the pendulum, you have to change its LENGTH, that is, the distance from the axis or support on top to the center of mass hanging below.
.
Since flat-earthers like to deny the existence of gravity and claim that difference in "density" of objects makes them fall, how then does making a watch balance wheel heavier (not larger) result in it moving more slowly? And how does lengthening a pendulum cause it to move more slowly, when all you did was move the weighted bob down along an adjustable arm? You didn't change the size of the arm.
.
-
You know, when Columbus was looking for sponsors, some people told him he was going to fall off the edge of the earth.
That's a myth. All educated people knew that the earth was a globe at the time of Columbus. They did not want to sponsor his voyage because scientists of that time had calculated the circuмference of the earth. They knew that the distance was too great for ships to be able to carry the necessary provisions. And their distance calculations were quite close. If there had not been an unknown continent on the other side of the earth, Columbus would have run out of supplies before making it all the way around.
-
And while I'm on pet peeves, would you please stop reposting nearly the entirety of content that you'd already posted only a page or 2 earlier in exactly the same topic?
.
I only repeat previous material if it is relevant to the present post (like this post and your question), because it's a lot of trouble for readers to page back and forth to keep together everything. If it were not for intervening and irrelevant post by scoffers who only aim to disrupt the thread or change topic, I wouldn't have to repeat material. So you ought to be telling those members not to be so rude, and to reply to the material at hand. Good luck with that BTW!
.
Incidentally, are you aware that your excessive use of bold and italics makes your sentences harder to read?
.
-
That's a myth. All educated people knew that the earth was a globe at the time of Columbus. They did not want to sponsor his voyage because scientists of that time had calculated the circuмference of the earth. They knew that the distance was too great for ships to be able to carry the necessary provisions. And their distance calculations were quite close. If there had not been an unknown continent on the other side of the earth, Columbus would have run out of supplies before making it all the way around.
The shortest distance from point A to point B is a line. The earth is flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/REAIi8X.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/13/a0/2b/13a02b9a5a2913717eb3b648d141ce52--flat-earth-proof-globe-earth.jpg)
-
That's a myth. All educated people knew that the earth was a globe at the time of Columbus. They did not want to sponsor his voyage because scientists of that time had calculated the circuмference of the earth. They knew that the distance was too great for ships to be able to carry the necessary provisions. And their distance calculations were quite close. If there had not been an unknown continent on the other side of the earth, Columbus would have run out of supplies before making it all the way around.
That's a myth. All educated people knew that the earth was a globe at the time of Columbus. They did not want to sponsor his voyage because scientists of that time had calculated the circuмference of the earth. They knew that the distance was too great for ships to be able to carry the necessary provisions. And their distance calculations were quite close. If there had not been an unknown continent on the other side of the earth, Columbus would have run out of supplies before making it all the way around.
.
Whether or not they knew it, there were nonetheless hecklers who taunted him, and jokes went around to ridicule his plan.
.
He kept two log books, one for the crew to read, and the accurate one for his records. The book accessible to the crew showed their progress to be far slower, less than half of the reality. So after they had gone 300 nautical miles, the crew's log book showed only 100. He did this to avoid making the sailors afraid that they were too far from home. And you are correct, that it was just as they were on the verge of having to turn around and return to Europe that they had fortunately sighted land.
.
The first European ship to cross the Pacific arrived in the Philippines. To this day, models of Magellan's ship is used for decorations by Phillipinos, such as hanging from rear-view mirrors in their cars.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fspanishexpeditionstothephilippines-150301215544-conversion-gate02%2F95%2Fspanish-expeditions-to-the-philippines-13-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1425268605&sp=415b7b4d3c6d277b219280fea14a0520) (https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F28%2Fd2%2Fa6%2F28d2a6d07f3476d07d9c856a5fbb175f--spanish-armada-remo.jpg&sp=7170ad5d1615817a20274c577b903be1)
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SVJKXCLooE
.
-
Whether or not they knew it, there were nonetheless hecklers who taunted him, and jokes went around to ridicule his plan.
I am not aware of any contemporary accounts of this happening. It was, however, a bad plan that deserved ridicule. His calculations of the size of the earth were incorrect. He did not know the Americas existed. The crews would have all starved without them.
In general, stories about Columbus being ridiculed were made up by anti-Catholics to make Catholics look like stupid people who believed in a flat earth. The anti-Catholics must be happy that they don't need to make this up any more.
-
.
Since flat-earthers like to deny the existence of gravity and claim that difference in "density" of objects makes them fall, how then does making a watch balance wheel heavier (not larger) result in it moving more slowly? And how does lengthening a pendulum cause it to move more slowly, when all you did was move the weighted bob down along an adjustable arm? You didn't change the size of the arm.
.
Because the weight of the bob exceeds its forward velocity.
-
You know, when Columbus was looking for sponsors, some people told him he was going to fall off the edge of the earth.
No, I'm fortunate to know that it's mostly a myth. Educated people of the (late) 15th Century understood that the Earth on which they stood is a globe (Latin glob·us, -i (m.)).[†]
I would not be surprised if--then as now--there were people who were plenty wealthy enough to be sought as sponsors, but who rose thro' the ranks of their industry or trade without a formal education, by demonstrating more practical skills and other strengths.
I grant that I have no reason to assume that harbor talk (kept lively among fishermen and other life-long mariners by rumors, challenges, 1-upmanship, and derision) was invented in only the most recent centuries. But The Edge might've been merely 1 more topic for harbor talk, to be added to the seaworthiness of ships, experiences as crew under ship's owners & officers, onset of the storm-season, quantity & quality of provisions, opportunities for personal enrichment, royal decrees, &c.
-------
Note †: I've already debunked the myth of The Edge, with links to sources, in a different topic: "Re: Flat Earth threads defame traditional Catholics on these forums", "Reply #79" (p. 6). Aug 27, 2017 at 19:00:11. <https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/flat-earth-threads-defame-traditional-catholics-on-these-forums/msg562314/#msg562314 (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/flat-earth-threads-defame-traditional-catholics-on-these-forums/msg562314/#msg562314)>. Please see esp. that posting's note ×: Jeffrey Burton Russell 1997: "The Myth of the Flat Earth". <http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html)> (approx. 2 screens worth, and still accessible). Russell is author of Inventing the Flat Earth (New York: Praeger, 1991). ISBN 0-275-93956-1 (don't know if it's still in print).
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg591366/#msg591366)
Quote from: Neil Obstat on Yesterday at 06:23:45 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg591366/#msg591366)
Since flat-earthers like to deny the existence of gravity and claim that difference in "density" of objects makes them fall, how then does making a watch balance wheel heavier (not larger) result in it moving more slowly? And how does lengthening a pendulum cause it to move more slowly, when all you did was move the weighted bob down along an adjustable arm? You didn't change the size of the arm.
.
.
Because the weight of the bob exceeds its forward velocity.
.
Oh, really? Do you often measure velocity in terms of weight, or is this a one-off?
-
I am not aware of any contemporary accounts of this happening. It was, however, a bad plan that deserved ridicule. His calculations of the size of the earth were incorrect. He did not know the Americas existed. The crews would have all starved without them.
In general, stories about Columbus being ridiculed were made up by anti-Catholics to make Catholics look like stupid people who believed in a flat earth. The anti-Catholics must be happy that they don't need to make this up any more.
.
And today's Catholics can be happy to forget all about the myth of flat-earthism!
.
Likewise, we can forget all about the nasty smear campaign against Columbus, yes?
.
Oh, wait, you said his plan deserved ridicule. Sorry. Which side are you on, again?
-
I grant that I have no reason to assume that harbor talk (kept lively among fishermen and other life-long mariners by rumors, challenges, 1-upmanship, and derision) was invented in only the most recent centuries. But The Edge might've been merely 1 more topic for harbor talk, to be added to the seaworthiness of ships, experiences as crew under ship's owners & officers, onset of the storm-season, quantity & quality of provisions, opportunities for personal enrichment, royal decrees, &c.
I have read that sailors were among those least likely to believe in a flat earth because they would have first hand experience of seeing objects disappear from bottom to top as they go over the horizon. For them, accepting flat earth would require a denial of their personal sense perceptions.
-
.
And today's Catholics can be happy to forget all about the myth of flat-earthism!
.
Likewise, we can forget all about the nasty smear campaign against Columbus, yes?
.
Oh, wait, you said his plan deserved ridicule. Sorry. Which side are you on, again?
I am on the side of telling the truth. Columbus worked with inaccurate calculations when good calculations were available to him. He had access to correct information on the size of the earth and chose to ignore it.
Columbus did not know there would be a land mass there. The crew survived, not due his plan, but due to luck or perhaps Providence. He would have gotten them all killed.
-
I am on the side of telling the truth. Columbus worked with inaccurate calculations when good calculations were available to him. He had access to correct information on the size of the earth and chose to ignore it.
Columbus did not know there would be a land mass there. The crew survived, not due his plan, but due to luck or perhaps Providence. He would have gotten them all killed.
.
So you're saying that the intention of Columbus was a ѕυιcιdє mission for himself and his crew?
.
Are you saying that explains his use of a fake log book so the sailors were deceived thinking they had not sailed so far?
.
Are you aware there had been previous successful voyages to the Americas, of which Columbus had been aware?
-
.
So you're saying that the intention of Columbus was a ѕυιcιdє mission for himself and his crew?
.
Are you saying that explains his use of a fake log book so the sailors were deceived thinking they had not sailed so far?
.
I suspect he was guilty of wishful thinking. He used the figures that he wanted to be true, rather than evaluating them dispassionately. He used the fake log book to prevent the crew from panicking.
.
Are you aware there had been previous successful voyages to the Americas, of which Columbus had been aware?
If so, then he was deceiving his sponsors. He told them he was going to the Orient.
-
I suspect he was guilty of wishful thinking. He used the figures that he wanted to be true, rather than evaluating them dispassionately. He used the fake log book to prevent the crew from panicking.
If so, then he was deceiving his sponsors. He told them he was going to the Orient.
.
It can't be overlooked that he was aware of previous voyages that did not jive with the expected distance to the orient via the westward course. He knew there must be some glaring mistake, but what the mistake was would have to be discovered. Realistically, if he had looked for sponsors on the basis that he was going to discover a missing continent, he would have been laughed to scorn. Therefore, if he wanted a voyage he would have to proceed on the basis that the course to the orient was somehow far less than what everyone had thought it was. He did not take provisions with him to travel far enough to traverse oceans the distance of which calculations said he would have to cross, and that's why he was on the verge of having to reverse course just when his lookout sighted land.
.
It was a huge gamble for him to undertake this journey, but he felt called to the mission somehow. Things did not add up, and the only way to settle the mystery was to sail across the ocean to find out what's there. It was extremely providential that he made it safely, for as we know, hurricanes are not uncommon storms in the Atlantic Ocean, but somehow, the year 1492 was a year when no such storms raged, for it would have wiped out his tiny fleet, for sure.
.
What Columbus did should not be downplayed or ridiculed as it is in today's public schools. He was first of all a very good salesman, to find support for his far-fetched idea must have been a tall order. He had very little convincing evidence to present, and was rejected by his first attempt for support from the King of Portugal. Not only was his case weak, he nonetheless persevered until he received the necessary funding for his ships, crew and supplies. He did all this basically on a "hunch" that he could get to the orient, somehow, even though the geometry of navigation clearly said otherwise. Little did he know that his voyage would merely open the door for Ferdinand Magellan to later spring-board on his success, to ultimately reach the Spice Islands, 30 years later. Only one ship out of 5 and a crew of less than 20 out of over 200 survived. Many of the sailors died from starvation.
.
And we ought not forget that it was the voyage of Columbus that sought the protection of Our Lady, by praying the Rosary all the way across the ocean (using ships' flags for identifying which Mystery they were on). Perhaps the failure of earlier voyages can be blamed on their lack of faith! The names of his 3 ships turned out to be a prophesy for the future apparition of Our Lady to Juan Diego in 1531: the Niña (the girl -- Our Lady of Guadalupe appears as a 15-year old Mexican princess), the Pinta (meaning a thing that appears to be painted but isn't, like the Pinto horse is not painted, and the tilma of Juan Diego was not "painted," but rather the colors of the Image of Our Lady cannot be explained by specialists), and the Santa Maria, the flagship that bears Our Lady's name.
.
-
.
Because the weight of the bob exceeds its forward velocity.
.
Oh, really? Do you often measure velocity in terms of weight, or is this a one-off?
You like momentum better?
-
You like momentum better?
.
I'd like it better if you could be honest for a change, and admit that you have no idea how a pendulum works.
.
Question for you:
How can the oscillation of a balance wheel and spring be compared to the vibration of a pendulum?
.
-
.
I'd like it better if you could be honest for a change, and admit that you have no idea how a pendulum works.
.
Yea, I suppose the moving earth keeps the pendulum going, right Neil?
-
.
It can't be overlooked that he was aware of previous voyages that did not jive with the expected distance to the orient via the westward course. He knew there must be some glaring mistake, but what the mistake was would have to be discovered. Realistically, if he had looked for sponsors on the basis that he was going to discover a missing continent, he would have been laughed to scorn. Therefore, if he wanted a voyage he would have to proceed on the basis that the course to the orient was somehow far less than what everyone had thought it was. He did not take provisions with him to travel far enough to traverse oceans the distance of which calculations said he would have to cross, and that's why he was on the verge of having to reverse course just when his lookout sighted land.
.
It was a huge gamble for him to undertake this journey, but he felt called to the mission somehow. Things did not add up, and the only way to settle the mystery was to sail across the ocean to find out what's there. It was extremely providential that he made it safely, for as we know, hurricanes are not uncommon storms in the Atlantic Ocean, but somehow, the year 1492 was a year when no such storms raged, for it would have wiped out his tiny fleet, for sure.
I have not been able to find any evidence that Columbus was aware of previous voyages to the Americas. All the accounts that I have seen say that he genuinely believed that Asia was a far shorter distance away than it was. The Wikipedia entry gives some details of the calculations:
As far back as the 3rd century BC, Eratosthenes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) had correctly computed the circuмference of the Earth by using simple geometry and studying the shadows cast by objects at two different locations: Alexandria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria) and Syene (modern-day Aswan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan)).[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-Sagan_40,04147-36) Eratosthenes's results were confirmed by a comparison of stellar observations at Alexandria and Rhodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes), carried out by Posidonius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posidonius) in the 1st century BC. These measurements were widely known among scholars, but confusion about the old-fashioned units of distance in which they were expressed had led, in Columbus's day, to some debate about the exact size.
From d'Ailly's Imago Mundi Columbus learned of Alfraganus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Muhammad_ibn_Kath%C4%ABr_al-Fargh%C4%81n%C4%AB)'s estimate that a degree of latitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude) (or a degree of longitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude) along the equator) spanned 56⅔ miles, but did not realize that this was expressed in the Arabic mile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_mile)rather than the shorter Roman mile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mile) with which he was familiar (1,480 m).[35] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-37) He therefore estimated the circuмference of the Earth to be about 30,200 km, whereas the correct value is 40,000 km (25,000 mi).
Furthermore, most scholars accepted Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy)'s estimate that Eurasia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia) spanned 180° longitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude), rather than the actual 130° (to the Chinese mainland) or 150° (to Japan at the latitude of Spain). Columbus, for his part, believed the even higher estimate of Marinus of Tyre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_of_Tyre), which put the longitudinal span of the Eurasian landmass at 225°, leaving only 135° of water. He also believed that Japan (which he called "Cipangu", following Marco Polo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo)) was much larger, farther to the east from China ("Cathay"), and closer to the equator than it is, and that there were inhabited islands even farther to the east than Japan, including the mythical Antillia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antillia), which he thought might lie not much farther to the west than the Azores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores). In this, he was influenced by the ideas of Florentine astronomer, Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_dal_Pozzo_Toscanelli), who corresponded with Columbus in 1474[36] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-38) and who also defended the feasibility of a westward route to Asia.[37] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-Morison-Admiral-39)
Columbus therefore estimated the distance from the Canary Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands) to Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles). The true figure is now known to be vastly larger: about 20,000 km.[38] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPhillips,_Jr1992110-40)[c] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-41) No ship in the 15th century could have carried enough food and fresh water for such a long voyage, and the dangers involved in navigating through the uncharted ocean would have been formidable. Most European navigators reasonably concluded that a westward voyage from Europe to Asia was unfeasible.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#cite_note-Morison-Admiral-39)I agree that there is a recent trend to be unjustly critical of Columbus. Unsurprisingly, secular humanism is associated with a widespread lack of sympathy and understanding for his deeply religious motivations. As Catholics, we can and should understand and appreciate them.
But the lack of support for his ideas was reasonable. It is important to oppose the Washington Irving inspired myth of clever Columbus trying to get funding from stupid Catholic flat-earthers.
-
.
I'd like it better if you could be honest for a change, and admit that you have no idea how a pendulum works.
.
Question for you:
How can the oscillation of a balance wheel and spring be compared to the vibration of a pendulum?
.
As the balance wheel is spring loaded, I don't know what you think it has to with the non-existence of gravity.
-
As the balance wheel is spring loaded, I don't know what you think it has to with the non-existence of gravity.
.
How does the balance wheel work considering the fact that flat-earthers deny the existence of inertia?
.
-
Yea, I suppose the moving earth keeps the pendulum going, right Neil?
.
I'm asking you. Instead of trying to change the subject (as usual) why don't you answer the question?
.
Answer the question:
.
How can the oscillation of a balance wheel and spring be compared to the vibration of a pendulum?
.
Repeat: balance wheel and spring compared to pendulum.
.
Try to think first, then write a reply.
.
-
.
Clock makers were busy inventing movements and escapements 300 years ago and all of them already could think circles around today's flat-earthers.
.
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. Presuming, that is, that you can think.
.
-
.
How does the balance wheel work considering the fact that flat-earthers deny the existence of inertia?
.
Despite all the blustering, scientists themselves CANNOT EXPLAIN GRAVITY. They ADMIT THIS. More than likely it's really electro-magnetism of some kind, and various electro-magnetic forces would explain said balance wheel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nztWhnVTWHU
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/26/cradle-to-grave/
But despite its simple approximation as a force, and its beautifully subtle description as a property of spacetime, we’ve come to realize over the past century that we still don’t know what gravity actually is.
...
When Newton proposed his model of universal gravity, one criticism of the model was how gravity could act at a distance. How does the Moon “detect” the presence of Earth and “know” to be pulled in Earth’s direction? A few ideas were proposed (https://briankoberlein.com/2014/04/21/gravitys-shadow/), but never really panned out. Since Newton’s model was so incredibly accurate, the action-at-a-distance problem was largely swept under the rug. Regardless of how masses detected each other, Newton’s model let us calculate their motion. Another difficulty came to be known as the 3-body problem (https://briankoberlein.com/2014/10/18/problematic/). Calculating the gravitational motion of any two masses was straight forward, but the motion of three or more masses was impossible to calculate exactly. The motion could be approximated to great precision, and was even used to discover Neptune (https://briankoberlein.com/2013/12/27/cold-equations/), but an exact, general solution for three masses would never be found. Newton’s idea was simple, but it’s application was complex.
-
Despite all the blustering, scientists themselves CANNOT EXPLAIN GRAVITY. They ADMIT THIS. More than likely it's really electro-magnetism of some kind, and various electro-magnetic forces would explain said balance wheel.
.
What "blustering?"
.
I did not mention gravity. You did, and it has nothing to do with my questions.
.
You're changing the topic again. I'm asking a specific question, about balance wheels vs. pendulums -- how do they compare?
.
Quote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 05:29:39 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg591596/#msg591596)
.
How does the balance wheel work considering the fact that flat-earthers deny the existence of inertia?
.
How can the oscillation of a balance wheel and spring be compared to the vibration of a pendulum?
.
.
I did not mention gravity.
.
If you'd let the flat-earthers reply, maybe they can demonstrate their comprehension of the matter.
.
-
.
I'm asking you. Instead of trying to change the subject (as usual) why don't you answer the question?
.
Answer the question:
.
How can the oscillation of a balance wheel and spring be compared to the vibration of a pendulum?
.
Repeat: balance wheel and spring compared to pendulum.
.
Try to think first, then write a reply.
.
No idea what you're referring to.
And since the globers don't either, it doesn't look like you'll be able to make your argument.
Sorry.
-
No idea what you're referring to.
And since the globers don't either, it doesn't look like you'll be able to make your argument.
Sorry.
.
Chicken.
.
-
.
Chicken.
.
See? You don't have an argument.
Earth is FLAT.
-
See? You don't have an argument.
Earth is FLAT.
.
You have consistently shown you are not interested in an intelligent discussion, but resort to insults, ad-hominems and derision.
.
I have given you objective, specific questions which you cannot answer (apparently) and instead yammer on with nonsense.
.
How can the oscillation of a balance wheel and spring be compared to the vibration of a pendulum?
.
If you don't want to answer the question at least be honest enough to admit the fact that you don't want to.
.
Or, if you don't believe me, take this question into the shop of anyone who repairs antique clocks, and speak to the technician (not the cashier or manager who might be ignorant of the mechanisms and their design and operation).
.
Ask a man who is proficient in the calibration, repair, maintenance and making of pendulum and balance wheel and escapement clocks this question about comparing the oscillation of the balance wheel & spring to that of the pendulum.
.
You can even do it online if you're too lazy to walk into a shop.
.
After all, if you walk into the shop you'll have to look him in the eye while you speak to him.
.
Shudder!! :'(
.
-
Clock makers were busy inventing movements and escapements 300 years ago and all of them already could think circles around today's flat-earthers. It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
Especially because that long ago, they were up against the limits of the metal-working technology of the time. Not just for manufacturing tiny interchangeable parts, but also for artisanal 1-of-a-kind prototypes. But that might be why there was such a princely sum awaiting the 1st success.
Presuming, that is, that you can think.
What!? You dare to doubt that any of them have either the knowledge of history or the skill of thinking at least 2-moves ahead, to recognize where you're headed with this line of discussion? Yeah, me too.
-
Especially because that long ago, they were up against the limits of the metal-working technology of the time. Not just for manufacturing tiny interchangeable parts, but also for artisanal 1-of-a-kind prototypes. But that might be why there was such a princely sum awaiting the 1st success.
What!? You dare to doubt that any of them have either the knowledge of history or the skill of thinking at least 2-moves ahead, to recognize where you're headed with this line of discussion? Yeah, me too.
.
What a relief! Someone who can actually think, and communicate! Thank you for posting, AlliDix.
.
They were busy trying to eek out a living with a practice in which they had to make all their parts by hand, one at a time!
.
The Industrial Revolution had an enormous impact on clock- and watch-making.
As such the question of "interchangeable parts" came along much later.
I'm referring to the art and practice of making clocks work even before parts were standardized.
There were men who actually UNDERSTOOD what's going on in all their clocks and watches!
.
Princely sums were few and far between.
.
Maybe my questions are not doing what they could if worded like this:
.
What is the common purpose, in the operation of a clock, of both the pendulum and the balance wheel & spring?
.
That is, this question has nothing to do with gravity.
.
I'm looking for what the pendulum does for the clock which is the same thing that the balance wheel & spring does for the clock.
.
-
.
IOW:
A) What function does the balance & spring serve for the timepiece movement?
B) What function does the pendulum serve for the timepiece movement?
C) What operation, specifically, do these two functions have in common?
-
No idea what you're referring to.
And since the globers don't either, it doesn't look like you'll be able to make your argument.
Sorry.
That's normal! :laugh1:
-
.
Flat-earthers don't know anything about wind-up clocks, which isn't surprising.
.
But the fact that they don't have any idea what I'm talking about proves they're not willing to learn.
.
No idea what you're referring to.
.
You could learn something by doing a search for balance wheel & spring, and pendulum clock.
.
But that's far too much work.
.
Similarly, it's far too much trouble to step outside at 3:00 am to see the blood "blue" supermoon of two days ago.
.
That's WAY OVER THE TOP, ain't it?
.
-
Sacred Heart of Jesus holding globe
.
Here's another one
.
(http://tradidi.com/files/our-lady-rosary.jpg)
-
The communist UN is evil. The logo for the UN is flat earth.
-
.
Quote from: Neil Obstat on January 22, 2018, 01:54:25 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg590676/#msg590676)
.
The Old Farmer's Almanac doesn't make a big production of its errors and omissions. Very rarely they provide apology for having made some mistake or omission, but it's very rare. In general the almanac is very reliable and provides vast amounts of useful information. They try to make their presentation enjoyable for their readers.
.
Here is an image they currently have on their home page which is probably not an actual photograph of the moon being observed by a group of people. It is merely an image that is given as an attraction to the article which it heads. It is a graphic arts composition designed to get readers interested in clicking on the article and reading it, and nothing more. It carries no moral message, nor is it intended to predict some event of great consequence soon to befall the earth or whatever. It's just a nice, interesting picture..
(https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/modules/moon/mask/moon-phase-mask.png)
Yes, it is a nice picture. Whoever made it did a good job. But it distorts reality.
.
It does NOT distort reality. Here are more such photographs.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.popphoto.com%2Fsites%2Fpopphoto.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fopengraph_1_91x1%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2016%2F11%2Fmoonsilhouettes.jpg%3Fitok%3DYzOj_KC4&sp=c5d06519ee48ee4665eda8a46d101787)
Nothing fake about this. Taken with a 500 mm telephoto.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkg.com.au%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FmoonSilhouettesSeq.jpg&sp=fa82815a9ee553a08aec454058e1d1ef)
More in the series -- all legitimate, straight photographs without any funny business.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FA_Moon-illusion-Rick-Baldridge-Lick-ObservtorySTv2.jpg&sp=4ef47db80f5d29d8d3d824b0a8620c4d)
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresources.stuff.co.nz%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fimages%2F1%2F7%2F6%2F5%2F2%2Fw%2Fimage.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1f96j6.png%2F1478220711635.jpg&sp=8b0b90a49e634f19d389dd6a940383e0)
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2Fimage%2F9379346-3x2-940x627.jpg&sp=708d20e8e0a6c191488401b8f9584553)
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdarkskydiary.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2Forangemoon2.jpg&sp=026b7602ca21af1065e94c56e76422e0)
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F08%2F01%2F08%2F2AFC5BCF00000578-3179917-image-a-6_1438414886515.jpg&sp=c6c12859c4d563a2e66948ab53cd740b)
.
These are examples of what you ALWAYS get with telephotos
.
When a much larger object is in the distant background, stepping back away from people and taking a telephoto from a distance causes the background (actually larger) object to appear bigger in comparison to the people in the foreground.
.
Every photographer knows how to use this fact in photography composition. It's telephoto 101.
.
-
.
Here's another one
.
(http://tradidi.com/files/our-lady-rosary.jpg)
What about the Infant of Prague? He holds a globe which represents the world - wide kingship of the Christ Child.
(https://www.traditions-monastiques.com/4018-thickbox_default/christ-enfant-prague.jpg)
-
What about the Infant of Prague? He holds a globe which represents the world - wide kingship of the Christ Child.
(https://www.traditions-monastiques.com/4018-thickbox_default/christ-enfant-prague.jpg)
The dome above and below make the world (not the earth) a globe. The globe of creation.
-
All this stuff goes right back to Providentissimus Deus. If Modern Science contradicts Scripture, then Catholics must defend Scripture, but if they cannot, then they must aquiesce to Modern Science. However, if they later come to see that Modern Science was wrong and Scripture was right, then they must defend Scripture.
-
Scripture depicts a Huge Flat and Stationary Earth, with a Small Sun circuting the sky.
-
Providentissimus Deus makes clear that a Catholic's first obligation is to Scripture, not to Modern Science.
-
Providentissimus Deus makes clear that a Catholic's first obligation is to Scripture, not to Modern Science.
PD makes clear that if science cannot prove a theory, especially at odds with Scripture, it cannot be held. Science has had 500 years to get it done, yet failed to prove earth is a globe. No Fathers expounded on how Scripture supports the globe theory. Some Fathers have expounded on Scripture to show earth is not a globe. 3 strikes: the globe is unworthy of any Catholic's belief, according to PD.
-
PD makes clear that if science cannot prove a theory, especially at odds with Scripture, it cannot be held. Science has had 500 years to get it done, yet failed to prove earth is a globe. No Fathers expounded on how Scripture supports the globe theory. Some Fathers have expounded on Scripture to show earth is not a globe. 3 strikes: the globe is unworthy of any Catholic's belief, according to PD.
.
More screwy inside-out thinking from happenby. The Church NEVER requires us to deny the evidence of our senses.
.
You ought to get in touch immediately with the French whose satellites are impossible by your Scripture interpretation!
.
They have satellites which map out the whole country.
.
In the following illustration they show how the satellites cover overlapping domains indicated by circles.
... (checking to see if the image shows up...)
... (looks like it's a no-go, sorry...)
-
PD makes clear that if science cannot prove a theory, especially at odds with Scripture, it cannot be held. Science has had 500 years to get it done, yet failed to prove earth is a globe. No Fathers expounded on how Scripture supports the globe theory. Some Fathers have expounded on Scripture to show earth is not a globe. 3 strikes: the globe is unworthy of any Catholic's belief, according to PD.
Yep. And our senses tells us that The Earth is Flat and Motionless.
-
Yep. And our senses tells us that The Earth is Flat and Motionless.
.
Nope. Our senses tell us the earth is a globe, indubitably not "flat."
-
.
Nope. Our senses tell us the earth is a globe, indubitably not "flat."
My senses don't feel the 1000 mph spin, nor the 60,000 mph travel around the sun. I don't feel gravity pressing down on me. I don't notice 8 inches of drop for every foot traveled southward or 8 inches of rise for every foot traveled northward. With the naked eye I've seen objects across large bodies of water which the "curvature" of the earth should have masked from view, but didn't. I've been to observatories on a clear day where 5 states were said to be visible from, yet I noticed little difference from the south, north, east or west of that view. All seemed to stretch out before me, as if the earth were flat.
My reason tells me that a tree's height doesn't change, regardless of my perspective. So, a tree may appear to be 40 feet tall standing beneath it, but only an inch tall, a few hundred feet away, yet it is still 40 feet tall.
My Faith tells me that Scripture is Innerrant and Scripture tells me that the earth is flat and motionless.
-
My senses don't feel the 1000 mph spin, nor the 60,000 mph travel around the sun. I don't feel gravity pressing down on me. I don't notice 8 inches of drop for every foot traveled southward or 8 inches of rise for every foot traveled northward. With the naked eye I've seen objects across large bodies of water which the "curvature" of the earth should have masked from view, but didn't. I've been to observatories on a clear day where 5 states were said to be visible from, yet I noticed little difference from the south, north, east or west of that view. All seemed to stretch out before me, as if the earth were flat.
My reason tells me that a tree's height doesn't change, regardless of my perspective. So, a tree may appear to be 40 feet tall standing beneath it, but only an inch tall, a few hundred feet away, yet it is still 40 feet tall.
My Faith tells me that Scripture is Innerrant and Scripture tells me that the earth is flat and motionless.
.
Why would your senses detect the earth's movement? Do your senses detect the movement of the hour hand on your watch?
.
The hour hand circuits the clock face twice every day, the earth only has one circuit in the same time so the hour hand would be moving twice as fast. Not saying the earth "moves" but if it did, how would it be felt? Answer: it wouldn't.
.
If you don't feel gravity pulling you down then perhaps you can levitate at will. Druids could do that. Are you a druid?
.
Have you taken a builder's level to the top of a tall mountain to see if a level line coincides with the horizon? I have. It doesn't.
.
Scripture says nothing about the earth being "flat" so you must be a practitioner of independent interpretation, a Protestant.
.
-
The dome above and below make the world (not the earth) a globe. The globe of creation.
.
Prove creation is "a globe."
.
-
I don't feel gravity pulling me down, because it doesn't exist; duh! :laugh1:
Things fall down, because they are heavier than air. Hence, Neil's drooping belly :jester:
Of course, without The THEORY of Gravity in The Globe Earth Model, everything on the Earth would spin off into space. So, Globe Earth has to defend the TTOG, no matter how ridiculous it seems. ::)
-
I don't feel gravity pulling me down, because it doesn't exist; duh! :laugh1:
.
Fake arguments don't work here.
If you want to make a case you can't start with your conclusion, especially when it's false.
Are you aware that smoke is heavier than air? So then why does it rise?
.
Things fall down, because they are heavier than air. Hence, Neil's drooping belly :jester:
.
Rather, hence WholeTradFoods' drooping face (he's sad because he's a loser).
.
I know, it's hard when you lose and you don't have a model. Maybe it's because you're jealous of the globe model! ;D
.
Of course, without The THEORY of Gravity in The Globe Earth Model, everything on the Earth would spin off into space. So, Globe Earth has to defend the TTOG, no matter how ridiculous it seems. ::)
.
There's nothing ridiculous about it. The math works and so do many machines with designs that rely on the math working.
.
Why does a pendulum clock work in a vacuum if you think it needs "air" instead of gravity?
.
Air has nothing to do with things falling, except to slow them down with air resistance.
.
-
Without Neil adding to your conversations, you would probably get almost no traffic in this sub-forum.
.
But it's so easy to answer all their wimpy challenges.
I just hope I don't start making up silly nonsense like they do, because I've been around their defective thinking so much lately.
.
ETA -- Looks like someone is deleting posts here. I saw about 5 on this page before I replied with this. Now they're gone.
-
.
But it's so easy to answer all their wimpy challenges.
I just hope I don't start making up silly nonsense like they do, because I've been around their defective thinking so much lately.
.
ETA -- Looks like someone is deleting posts here. I saw about 5 on this page before I replied with this. Now they're gone.
Big words for a small man who's answered exactly zero flat earth challenges.
-
Big words for a small man who's answered exactly zero flat earth challenges.
.
There you go again, repeating your well-tried-and-untrue platitudes.
.
I have answered every flat-earth so-called challenge you can dredge up. But you don't like to hear the truth.
.
Then when I ask you a question you make yourself entirely SCARCE. Or jump topic like a Protestant.
.
Flat-earthers scared of questions!!
See them run away and hide!
When they peek out from their hole
Muster naught but what's been tried.
.
-
.
There you go again, repeating your well-tried-and-untrue platitudes.
.
I have answered every flat-earth so-called challenge you can dredge up. But you don't like to hear the truth.
.
Then when I ask you a question you make yourself entirely SCARCE. Or jump topic like a Protestant.
.
Flat-earthers scared of questions!!
See them run away and hide!
When they peek out from their hole
Muster naught but what's been tried.
.
Uh, no. Metaphysics and philosophy are missing for you. Your science doesn't hold water.
-
Things fall down and go boom, because they are heavy. Air pressure may contribute to that, but primarily it is because they are heavy.
-
Things fall down and go boom, because they are heavy. Air pressure may contribute to that, but primarily it is because they are heavy.
.
And that's why things "fall down go boom" in a vacuum?
Because of air pressure?
No, wait.......... (no air, no pressure...?)
.
Things that are heavy fall down and go boom
They do it in road, they do it in room
If you're not careful, they'll do it too soon
For crying out loud, they go boom in vacuum!
-
.
Some more satellites that don't exist!
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/24796376_1648466335191708_3298131443900276356_n.jpg)
.(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/24312828_1648466315191710_1993578651334445455_n.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pose-coiffe-sur-lanceur_078.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/24068115_1642464949125180_1959906970526829499_n.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/23316720_1618940014811007_788489377157425654_n.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Transfert_BIL_BAF_012.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Transfert_BIL_BAF_067.jpg)
.
-
.
Some more satellites that don't exist!
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/24796376_1648466335191708_3298131443900276356_n.jpg)
.(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/24312828_1648466315191710_1993578651334445455_n.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pose-coiffe-sur-lanceur_078.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/24068115_1642464949125180_1959906970526829499_n.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/23316720_1618940014811007_788489377157425654_n.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Transfert_BIL_BAF_012.jpg)
.
(https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Transfert_BIL_BAF_067.jpg)
.
You're right. No one would ever go to that much trouble to lie ::)
-
.
And that's why things "fall down go boom" in a vacuum?
Because of air pressure?
No, wait.......... (no air, no pressure...?)
.
Things that are heavy fall down and go boom
They do it in road, they do it in room
If you're not careful, they'll do it too soon
For crying out loud, they go boom in vacuum!
Right, because they are heavy.
-
Of course, the tides could be caused by variations in air pressure, especially with a firm Dome and a small and relatively close Sun and cooling Moon.
-
Of course, the tides could be caused by variations in air pressure, especially with a firm Dome and a small and relatively close Sun and cooling Moon.
.
Why would there be any "variations in air pressure" under the "dome?"
Such a closed system would seem to be static and rather stable.
Without any changing influences, why, we wouldn't even have any storms, either.
Looks pretty bad for the silly "flat" earth hypothesis -- the one without any model.
.
-
Right, because they are heavy.
.
What makes them "heavy?" Can you define what you mean by "heavy?"
.
I guess not.
.
-
.
What makes them "heavy?" Can you define what you mean by "heavy?"
.
I guess not.
.
Modern science admits that they don't know what gravity is or how it works. They only describe the behaviors of objects with various mathematical equations.
So science can't define "heavy" either, right?
There's weight ... which has to do with the total amount of matter, and density ... which has to do with how much matter there is in how much space. Objects of lesser weight are moved towards objects of higher weight ... but what tethers them together? Is it electromagnetism? Some other force? Nobody knows for sure. What force can act at a distance? There MUST be some kind of contact between the objects through some kind of medium, no? Some early heliocentric images depicted these "spokes" coming out from the sun and attaching themselves to the planets.
-
Modern science admits that they don't know what gravity is or how it works. They only describe the behaviors of objects with various mathematical equations.
So science can't define "heavy" either, right?
There's weight ... which has to do with the total amount of matter, and density ... which has to do with how much matter there is in how much space. Objects of lesser weight are moved towards objects of higher weight ... but what tethers them together? Is it electromagnetism? Some other force? Nobody knows for sure. What force can act at a distance? There MUST be some kind of contact between the objects through some kind of medium, no? Some early heliocentric images depicted these "spokes" coming out from the sun and attaching themselves to the planets.
.
Why are you concerned with my question to WholeTradFoods? Are you trying to answer for him?
Don't you think he can answer a simple question for himself?
.
-
.
What makes them "heavy?" Can you define what you mean by "heavy?"
.
I guess not.
.
"Heavy" as in "how much it weighs?" Going way back to 9th grade, I remember W=MG. weight = mass X gravitational force....right?
-
.
Why would there be any "variations in air pressure" under the "dome?"
Such a closed system would seem to be static and rather stable.
Without any changing influences, why, we wouldn't even have any storms, either.
Looks pretty bad for the silly "flat" earth hypothesis -- the one without any model.
.
The Sun heats up the atmosphere and it expands (locally, since it's a small Sun), while The Moon cools it (again, locally). Of course, with a "Firm Dome," the air and water are confined to a limited amount of space, whereas without a Dome, the atmosphere has practically infinite space to expand into (within the limits imposed by "graVity" of course) :laugh1:
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/40/85/f840856f29d5c6ef5a36b7c30f5234ce.png)
-
I think weight is basically is function of density and mass. Of course, there's air pressure and water pressure too, but that's still just a function of density and mass. Naturally, within a Domed Earth, that's a "closed system." So, we'd see dramatic effects of increases and decreases in water and air pressure, manifested in things like tides.
-
I think weight is basically is function of density and mass.
This is demonstrably untrue. Stick something inside a vacuum chamber and it still falls.
-
This is demonstrably untrue. Stick something inside a vacuum chamber and it still falls.
So what? What I've said would predict that. It's just that without air/water/you sitting on it, it wouldn't be quite as heavy ;)
-
(https://www.cloverdalescience.com/uploads/3/9/2/8/39284361/science-idiom-expression-gravity-of-the-situation-phrases-astronauts-jwhn553-low.jpg?251)
-
I don't understand what you are trying to say then. What exactly is it about gravity that you have an issue with, and what are you proposing to replace it with?
-
I don't understand what you are trying to say then. What exactly is it about gravity that you have an issue with, and what are you proposing to replace it with?
Gravity is an answer to a problem that only exists on a Globe Earth. You don't need Gravity to explain why dumbells are heavy, on a Flat Earth. It's density and mass on Globe and Flat Earth, but Gravity explains how people in Australia can walk upside down on a Globe Earth.
(https://i1.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/meanwhile-australia.jpg?resize=476%2C315)
-
(http://clarkscience8.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/3/7/2637711/gravity_orig.png)
-
Gravity is not the solution to any problem. It's an explanation of an observed phenomenon. We observe that:
1. Things fall towards the earth.
2. The rate at which things fall is independent of their weight if you remove air resistance (i.e. buoyancy and density) from the equation. The famous experiment of dropping a feather an a hammer in a vacuum chamber comes to mind.
We further observe, if you find sensitive enough equipment, that ALL objects are pulled towards one another. The earth is so big compared to everything on it that you don't notice without sensitive equipment, but it can be done (and I've done it in a physics lab. Really cool experiment). All gravity is is an equation that describes this interaction.
-
Gravity is not the solution to any problem. It's an explanation of an observed phenomenon. We observe that:
1. Things fall towards the earth.
2. The rate at which things fall is independent of their weight if you remove air resistance (i.e. buoyancy and density) from the equation. The famous experiment of dropping a feather an a hammer in a vacuum chamber comes to mind.
We further observe, if you find sensitive enough equipment, that ALL objects are pulled towards one another. The earth is so big compared to everything on it that you don't notice without sensitive equipment, but it can be done (and I've done it in a physics lab. Really cool experiment). All gravity is is an equation that describes this interaction.
No it isn't. Gravity is an invention to explain how a Globe Earth is possible. If you have been decieved into believing that special machinery is needed to determine why dumbells are heavy, then I think you should start rigorously questioning those beliefs and the people who taught them to you.
-
Nowhere did I say anything about why, because the law of gravity doesn't say anything about why. It merely says what.
-
Nowhere did I say anything about why, because the law of gravity doesn't say anything about why. It merely says what.
Gravity does not explain why dumbells are heavy; density and mass does. Gravity explains why Australians don't fall off The Globe.
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fe-water-kayak.jpg?resize=300%2C213)
-
Noted. I will add you to the list of people who clearly have no interest in having a real discussion.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQidtK0mrvyyhEtQhHFXpfgibsLQBT0Y7QWb29khoa5vnLB-lCo)
I'm telling you the truth, as I see it. And, I think you are conflating Gravity with Mass/Density and I don't think they are the same things, nor do I think they answer the same questions, but you do and I think you are wrong about that. If Issac Newton and Albert Einstein were here, I think they would agree with me on this point.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh2d3i2HvVc/VbVSKlLuWiI/AAAAAAAAESo/XWsUft6ZlGg/s1600/i.jpg)
-
So, mass and density are functions of weight on a Flat or Globe Earth, but on The Globe Earth you have the extra "layer" of Gravity applied to all mass and density, creating a "stick to the ball" effect, which explains how trillions of tons of water can stick to the side of The Globe Earth and a seagul can still fly over that water. I think somehow Gravity is supposed to attract objects corresponding to their mass and density. So, Gravity "can" hold all that water and still let the seagull fly. I don't think Gravity is real, but I think that is roughly how it is supposed to work.
Of course, there is the further "layer" of The Earth's spin, at around 1000 mph. Gravity is supposed to hold us safely to The Globe Earth, while this spin is occurring. Again, mass/density don't explain why we don't fly off/fall off a Spinning Globe Earth; Gravity explains that.
-
.
Your expert graphic artist doesn't know how to spell dye. Some expert. (Not)
.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh2d3i2HvVc/VbVSKlLuWiI/AAAAAAAAESo/XWsUft6ZlGg/s1600/i.jpg)
-
So, mass and density are functions of weight on a Flat or Globe Earth, but on The Globe Earth you have the extra "layer" of Gravity applied to all mass and density, creating a "stick to the ball" effect, which explains how trillions of tons of water can stick to the side of The Globe Earth and a seagul can still fly over that water. I think somehow Gravity is supposed to attract objects corresponding to their mass and density. So, Gravity "can" hold all that water and still let the seagull fly. I don't think Gravity is real, but I think that is roughly how it is supposed to work.
Of course, there is the further "layer" of The Earth's spin, at around 1000 mph. Gravity is supposed to hold us safely to The Globe Earth, while this spin is occurring. Again, mass/density don't explain why we don't fly off/fall off a Spinning Globe Earth; Gravity explains that.
.
Well, actually no, you have it backwards, as usual.
.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQidtK0mrvyyhEtQhHFXpfgibsLQBT0Y7QWb29khoa5vnLB-lCo)
I'm telling you the truth, as I see it. And, I think you are conflating Gravity with Mass/Density and I don't think they are the same things, nor do I think they answer the same questions, but you do and I think you are wrong about that. If Issac Newton and Albert Einstein were here, I think they would agree with me on this point.
.
I don't know where anyone is "conflating gravity with mass/density" anywhere.
Maybe you ought to use a quote of the offending material.
And try to be careful using the forward slash (/) because that's how our keyboards type "divided by."
.
I have a video on buoyancy that I would like to hear your explanation and summary for -- are you interested?
.
-
The Sun heats up the atmosphere and it expands (locally, since it's a small Sun), while The Moon cools it (again, locally).
.
So the sun heats up the atmosphere and the moon cools it.
Then why is the daytime temperature during a new moon the same as during a full moon?
The new moon in the sky at the same time as the sun should take away all the sun's heat that day.
.
-
.
Your expert graphic artist doesn't know how to spell dye. Some expert. (Not)
.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh2d3i2HvVc/VbVSKlLuWiI/AAAAAAAAESo/XWsUft6ZlGg/s1600/i.jpg)
Well that is damning ::)
-
.
So the sun heats up the atmosphere and the moon cools it.
Then why is the daytime temperature during a new moon the same as during a full moon?
The new moon in the sky at the same time as the sun should take away all the sun's heat that day.
.
I don't know how you could be sure of what you are saying.
-
.
Well, actually no, you have it backwards, as usual.
.
How do you figure that's backwards?
-
.
I don't know where anyone is "conflating gravity with mass/density" anywhere.
Maybe you ought to use a quote of the offending material.
And try to be careful using the forward slash (/) because that's how our keyboards type "divided by."
.
I have a video on buoyancy that I would like to hear your explanation and summary for -- are you interested?
.
Are you saying you don't see the need for Gravity, with a ball earth spinning at 1000 mph?! :o
-
.
I don't know where anyone is "conflating gravity with mass/density" anywhere.
Maybe you ought to use a quote of the offending material.
And try to be careful using the forward slash (/) because that's how our keyboards type "divided by."
.
I have a video on buoyancy that I would like to hear your explanation and summary for -- are you interested?
.
Post it and we'll see if it "holds any water" :laugh1:
-
.
Your expert graphic artist doesn't know how to spell dye. Some expert. (Not)
.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh2d3i2HvVc/VbVSKlLuWiI/AAAAAAAAESo/XWsUft6ZlGg/s1600/i.jpg)
Not to be to picky here, but I don't think that the term is supposed to be "dye." I think the term "die" is referring to an object, which is singular for "dice." Notice that on the right side of the container, all of the terms refer to objects, whereas on the left side, there are just different types of fluids. :)
-
Post it and we'll see if it "holds any water" :laugh1:
.
I started a new thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/why-do-submarines-work/#new) but I guess no replies means no one is interested.
If it doesn't say, "Proof the Earth is Not Flat," you guys aren't impressed.
.
-
Not to be to picky here, but I don't think that the term is supposed to be "dye." I think the term "die" is referring to an object, which is singular for "dice." Notice that on the right side of the container, all of the terms refer to objects, whereas on the left side, there are just different types of fluids. :)
.
You could be right, but since I don't see any "die" in the milk or syrup I can't be sure. Do you see a die?
-
.
You could be right, but since I don't see any "die" in the milk or syrup I can't be sure. Do you see a die?
Yeah, if you click on the picture it gets bigger and then I can see three black dots on a white die.
-
I see the die and the kernel.
-
I guess Neil's finally admitting that Flat Earth makes sense. :applause:
-
.
"Flat" earth nonsense makes sense to nonsensical flat-earthers, apparently.
.
You know, those who've decided they're a flat-earther. It's an act of will, not of logic.
.
Once someone decides they're a flat-earther, it's too late, they're not coming back from that sh*t.
.
They didn't use facts, evidence, or logic to reach that conclusion in the first place.
.
So you can't really use facts, evidence, or logic in your argument to convince them the earth is indeed spheroid.
.
-
.
"Flat" earth nonsense makes sense to nonsensical flat-earthers, apparently.
.
You know, those who've decided they're a flat-earther. It's an act of will, not of logic.
.
Once someone decides they're a flat-earther, it's too late, they're not coming back from that sh*t.
.
They didn't use facts, evidence, or logic to reach that conclusion in the first place.
.
So you can't really use facts, evidence, or logic in your argument to convince them the earth is indeed spheroid.
.
Flat Earth makes lots of sense. Your just being obnoxious.
-
Flat Earth makes lots of sense. Your just being obnoxious.
.
On the contrary, flat-earth makes utter nonsense and you are the obnoxious one, posting gibberish.
.
All the physical laws of nature are opposed to the earth being a "flat" cheesecake. It makes utter nonsense.
.
No other bodies of matter in free suspension ever take the form of such a cheesecake.
.
We can see the sun, clearly visible, which is spherical, and the moon, likewise spherical, and the planets.
.
Mars, Venus, Jupiter and even Jupiter's moons.
.
They're nearly 400,000,000 miles away but they're obviously spherical.
.
Any body of liquid like water in free-fall or zero gravity automatically forms a sphere.
.
When you sneeze, the droplets airborne are all spherical.
.
During an explosion of molten material, the microscopic droplets of metal cooled in the air form spherical beads.
.
Volcanic ash that explodes out of a volcano contains tiny spherical beads like that.
.
Spherical shapes are everywhere we look in nature.
.
Glass blowers when they get air bubbles in their blown glass, the bubbles are always spherical, never flat.
.
Go ahead and prove me wrong:
.
Once someone decides they're a flat-earther, it's too late, they're not coming back from that sh*t.
.
They didn't use facts, evidence, or logic to reach that conclusion in the first place.
.
So you can't really use facts, evidence, or logic in your argument to convince them the earth is indeed spheroid.
-
I see the die and the kernel.
.
Congratulations, you've really accomplished something.
Now tell me:
What happens when you take that cylinder full of various liquids and solid objects, seal it tight, and turn it upside-down?
.
-
.
On the contrary, flat-earth makes utter nonsense and you are the obnoxious one, posting gibberish.
.
All the physical laws of nature are opposed to the earth being a "flat" cheesecake. It makes utter nonsense.
.
No other bodies of matter in free suspension ever take the form of such a cheesecake.
.
We can see the sun, clearly visible, which is spherical, and the moon, likewise spherical, and the planets.
.
Mars, Venus, Jupiter and even Jupiter's moons.
.
They're nearly 400,000,000 miles away but they're obviously spherical.
.
Any body of liquid like water in free-fall or zero gravity automatically forms a sphere.
.
When you sneeze, the droplets airborne are all spherical.
.
During an explosion of molten material, the microscopic droplets of metal cooled in the air form spherical beads.
.
Volcanic ash that explodes out of a volcano contains tiny spherical beads like that.
.
Spherical shapes are everywhere we look in nature.
.
Glass blowers when they get air bubbles in their blown glass, the bubbles are always spherical, never flat.
.
Go ahead and prove me wrong:
.
Once someone decides they're a flat-earther, it's too late, they're not coming back from that sh*t.
.
They didn't use facts, evidence, or logic to reach that conclusion in the first place.
.
So you can't really use facts, evidence, or logic in your argument to convince them the earth is indeed spheroid.
It doesn't follow. You may as well say, the sun and moon give off light, so the earth must as well. Not necessarily.
But you want to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, who is in desperate need of your hyper-criticism and insults. It must be frustrating to live in a fantasy world, where you are always right and the rest of us just keep messing up. ::)
-
It doesn't follow. You may as well say, the sun and moon give off light, so the earth must as well. Not necessarily.
But you want to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, who is in desperate need of your hyper-criticism and insults. It must be frustrating to live in a fantasy world, where you are always right and the rest of us just keep messing up. ::)
.
That's all you have? HAHAHAHA
.
I ask simple questions and your reply is "It doesn't follow?"
.
You can't answer any challenge intelligently. Face the music. You LOSE.
.
.
Quote from: WholeFoodsTrad on April 05, 2018, 01:33:38 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg602817/#msg602817)
Flat Earth makes lots of sense. Your [sic -- my what? my challenging arguments?] just being obnoxious.
.
Here we are again: ad-hominem central.
.
On the contrary, flat-earth makes utter nonsense and you are the obnoxious one, posting gibberish.
.
All the physical laws of nature are opposed to the earth being a "flat" cheesecake.
Flat-earthism cheesecake makes utter nonsense.
.
No other bodies of matter in free suspension ever take the form of such a cheesecake.
.
We can see the sun, clearly visible, which is spherical, and the moon, likewise spherical, and the planets.
.
Mars, Venus, Jupiter and even Jupiter's moons.
.
They're nearly 400,000,000 miles away but they're obviously spherical.
.
Any body of liquid like water in free-fall or zero gravity automatically forms a sphere.
.
When you sneeze, the droplets airborne are all spherical.
.
During an explosion of molten material, the microscopic droplets of metal cooled in the air form spherical beads.
.
Volcanic ash that explodes out of a volcano contains tiny spherical beads like that.
.
Spherical shapes are everywhere we look in nature.
.
Glass blowers when they get air bubbles in their blown glass, the bubbles are always spherical, never flat.
.
Go ahead and prove me wrong: OR TRY TO JUMP TOPIC AGAIN. ...(which see........)
.
Once someone decides they're a flat-earther, it's too late, they're not coming back from that trash.
.
They didn't use facts, evidence, or logic to reach that conclusion in the first place.
.
So no one can really use facts, evidence, or logic in his argument to convince flat-earthers the earth is indeed spheroid.
.
-
.
That's all you have? HAHAHAHA
.
I ask simple questions and your reply is "It doesn't follow?"
.
You can't answer any challenge intelligently. Face the music. You LOSE.
.
.
Quote from: WholeFoodsTrad on April 05, 2018, 01:33:38 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg602817/#msg602817)
.
Here we are again: ad-hominem central.
.
On the contrary, flat-earth makes utter nonsense and you are the obnoxious one, posting gibberish.
.
All the physical laws of nature are opposed to the earth being a "flat" cheesecake.
Flat-earthism cheesecake makes utter nonsense.
.
No other bodies of matter in free suspension ever take the form of such a cheesecake.
.
We can see the sun, clearly visible, which is spherical, and the moon, likewise spherical, and the planets.
.
Mars, Venus, Jupiter and even Jupiter's moons.
.
They're nearly 400,000,000 miles away but they're obviously spherical.
.
Any body of liquid like water in free-fall or zero gravity automatically forms a sphere.
.
When you sneeze, the droplets airborne are all spherical.
.
During an explosion of molten material, the microscopic droplets of metal cooled in the air form spherical beads.
.
Volcanic ash that explodes out of a volcano contains tiny spherical beads like that.
.
Spherical shapes are everywhere we look in nature.
.
Glass blowers when they get air bubbles in their blown glass, the bubbles are always spherical, never flat.
.
Go ahead and prove me wrong: OR TRY TO JUMP TOPIC AGAIN. ...(which see........)
.
Once someone decides they're a flat-earther, it's too late, they're not coming back from that trash.
.
They didn't use facts, evidence, or logic to reach that conclusion in the first place.
.
So no one can really use facts, evidence, or logic in his argument to convince flat-earthers the earth is indeed spheroid.
.
:sleep:
-
.
It's so much more peaceful when you're asleep. :baby:
.
Your infantile squabbling is unbecoming of a real woman.
.
Now, where were we, in our adult discussion before the baby started up again?
.
All the physical laws of nature are opposed to the earth being a "flat" cheesecake.
Flat-earthism cheesecake makes utter nonsense.
.
No other bodies of matter in free suspension ever take the form of such a cheesecake.
.
We can see the sun, clearly visible, which is spherical, and the moon, likewise spherical, and the planets.
.
Mars, Venus, Jupiter and even Jupiter's moons.
.
They're nearly 400,000,000 miles away but they're obviously spherical.
.
Any body of liquid like water in free-fall or zero gravity automatically forms a sphere.
.
When you sneeze, the droplets airborne are all spherical.
.
During an explosion of molten material, the microscopic droplets of metal cooled in the air form spherical beads.
.
Volcanic ash that explodes out of a volcano contains tiny spherical beads like that.
.
Spherical shapes are everywhere we look in nature.
.
Glass blowers when they get air bubbles in their blown glass, the bubbles are always spherical, never flat.
.
Go ahead and prove me wrong: OR TRY TO JUMP TOPIC AGAIN. ...(which see........)