Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28242 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #180 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:34:49 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2023, 11:30:42 AM

Untrue. I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.

THIS ^^^. See, these "learned men" of the post-scholastic era still believed that there were semi-solid spheres responsible for carrying the planets around. But modern science rejects their cosmology as well. They most certainly did not believe (see my citation above) that the heavenly bodies floated around in empty space on account of some unseen force (gravity). It's interesting to see how JayneK tries to impose modern cosmology onto the concentric spheres model ... which is completely false. So in her view, she must reject the opinions of these "learned men" of that era.

Really the only way to reconcile the firmament with a ball earth would be to have the firmament completely encircle the entire globe. But they would have had trouble understanding how the bottom of this solid globe would not rest on the bottom part of the firmament sphere, since they didn't believe in gravity, but density, and they believed in an absolute (vs. relative) up and down. So the only thing that makes sense is the Hebrew model where the bottom part of the earth is Sheol + Great Deep.

Tradman · « **Reply #181 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:42:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 11:31:08 AM

So the theory of the concentric spheres became popular after the revival of Aristotle in the scholastic era. But what does that mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

This is what the "learned men" of the period believed. They did not believe in some force of gravity that could carry things along in some relatively-fixed orbit. They used the spheres (a transparent semi-solid structure) to explain how the different planets could each have its own path, and then the stars all seemed to rotate together, in unison (because they were in the same sphere).

Here's one diagram of this model (from 1539):

Have a look in the center there. That doesn't like like NASA's ball earth to me.

Beautiful. Shows another misunderstanding of the word "sphere" by globe believers.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #182 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:44:45 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2023, 11:30:42 AM

Not really. You only acknowledged it for the 'Patristic Period' and then act like everything since then is some kind of unanimous opinion, which is completely false.
Untrue. I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #183 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:45:33 AM »

Here's some more about the spheres ...

Quote

Following Anaximander, his pupil Anaximenes (c. 585 – c. 528/4) held that the stars, Sun, Moon, and planets are all made of fire. But whilst the stars are fastened on a revolving crystal sphere like nails or studs, the Sun, Moon, and planets, and also the Earth, all just ride on air like leaves because of their breadth. And whilst the fixed stars are carried around in a complete circle by the stellar sphere, the Sun, Moon and planets do not revolve under the Earth between setting and rising again like the stars do, but rather on setting they go laterally around the Earth like a cap turning halfway around the head until they rise again. And unlike Anaximander, he relegated the fixed stars to the region most distant from the Earth. The most enduring feature of Anaximenes' cosmos was its conception of the stars being fixed on a crystal sphere as in a rigid frame, which became a fundamental principle of cosmology down to Copernicus and Kepler.

It wasn't until Kepler/Newton that the idea of there being a solid enclosure around the earth was dispensed with.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #184 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:47:26 AM »

Quote

While you may convince your supporters ...You are playing to your audience.

Ladislaus has supporters, but mainly those who support truth/evidence. I've never been the science-type, and never cared about space/stars/etc. I only found out about flat earth a few years ago and I only support it because

a) it makes sense Scripturally/theologically,
b) there's tons of historical evidence for it in the ancient world, all of which lines up in most details,
c) the ancient world learned directly from Noah, post-Flood, who would've learned directly from Adam as to the origins/nature of the earth
d) any notion of heliocentrism or the earth being a planet is pagan/occultic/satanic in nature, because it subverts God's order
e) any notion of 'infinite space' and 'galaxies' is a lie, meant to expand God's creation and make earth/humanity/salvation less important
f) God created everything for the purpose of salvation -- we are not meant to travel to the moon, or mars -- but only heaven.
g) Anything in space is meant to glorify God in its beauty, not to be part of a 'unexplored space' which distracts from our obligations to God.
h) All in creation is centered on earth, and anything which expands this notion into space/universe, minimizes the importance of the Church, and Christ's work here, and His continual, awe-inspiring sacrifice in Holy Mass.
i) Pick any catholic chapel where Our Lord is in the tabernacle...THIS is the center of creation...HE is the center of all that is important. Not mars or the moon.
j) God would not create 'infinite space' which is without Him, without grace, without Catholic truth. This is purely a satanic distraction.
k) Philosophically and religiously, the whole idea of an explorable universe is anti-catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #185 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:50:47 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 21, 2023, 11:44:45 AM

[spheres pictures]

So, do you believe that there's a solid sphere surrounding a globe earth and water outside of the solid sphere? I doubt JayneK believes that.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #186 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:53:32 AM »

Quote

It wasn't until Kepler/Newton that the idea of there being a solid enclosure around the earth was dispensed with.

Both of whom, like Galileo, were science-worshipping, church-hating, freemasons.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #187 on:** October 21, 2023, 11:56:38 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 21, 2023, 11:13:02 AM

While you may convince your supporters that I have an agenda, I know that I am only interested in the truth, so this comment is not meant to convince me. You are playing to your audience.

You've made it clear that you have an agenda. You're stuck on the validity of modern "mainstream science", and that's why you keep appealing to the same misinterpretation of Providentissimus Deus that the Modernists made, stating things like how Sacred Scripture doesn't intend to teach about scientific matters.

It's not about supporting me. It's about supporting St. Robert Bellarmine, who stated that scientific matters can in fact also be matters of faith due to the principle of ex parte dicentis, supporting the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. We reject your notion that science is completely independent of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture cannot err ... period, since the Holy Spirit is it's primary Author, and there's not a single word in Sacred Scripture that He did not intend to be there. But you would rather believe that Sacred Scripture erred than that modern science might be in error.

Tradman · « **Reply #188 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:01:29 PM »

Even Wiki admits the term 'sphere' changed with Galileo. Good thing the Church condemned the new "doctrine".

Spherical variations[edit]

The total number of celestial spheres was not fixed. In this 16th-century illustration, the firmament (sphere of fixed stars) is eighth, a "crystalline" sphere (posited to account for the reference to "waters ... above the firmament" in Genesis 1:7) is ninth, and the Primum Mobile is tenth. Outside all is the Empyrean, the "habitation of God and all the elect".
Copernicus and after[edit]
Copernicus accepted existence of the sphere of the fixed stars, and (more ambiguously) that of the Primum Mobile,^[7] as too (initially) did Galileo^[8] – though he would later challenge its necessity in a heliocentric system.^[9]

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #189 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:02:01 PM »

"Separation of Church and State" is a heresy, just like "Separation of Church and Science".

Tradman · « **Reply #190 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:10:39 PM »

Wiki manages to remind Pythagoreans that the heliocentric system was not widely accepted until well after Copernicus.

The Ptolemaic system presented a view of the universe in which apparent motion was taken for real – a viewpoint still maintained in common speech through such everyday terms as moonrise and sunset.^[3] Rotation of the Earth on its polar axis – as seen in a heliocentric solar system, which (while anticipated by Aristarchus) was not to be widely accepted until well after Copernicus^[4]

Jaynek · « **Reply #191 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:23:04 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2023, 11:30:42 AM

Not really. You only acknowledged it for the 'Patristic Period' and then act like everything since then is some kind of unanimous opinion, which is completely false.

The words for describing shapes are usually ambiguous in themselves. It is therefore easy to misunderstand short quotes. However, the larger context can sometimes make clear what model is under discussion. I gave the example of De Sphaera Mundi in which the context makes it very clear that he is talking about the nested sphere model. And we know that this represents the consensus of the time because this is what was taught in Catholic universities.

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2023, 11:30:42 AM

I've never seen a globe earth model which includes/explains the firmament. But the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief of a firmament, because it's explicitly stated in Scripture. So...if a firmament is mentioned, then the model is some type of flat earth/snow globe. Ergo, the Church Fathers believed in some type of flat earth.

St. Thomas supported the solid nature of the firmament in the Summa while believing the earth is a globe. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm Ergo, one cannot automatically assume that everyone who believes in a solid firmament believes the earth is flat. They are separate issues.

Jaynek · « **Reply #192 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:41:12 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 11:34:49 AM

But modern science rejects their cosmology as well. They most certainly did not believe (see my citation above) that the heavenly bodies floated around in empty space on account of some unseen force (gravity). It's interesting to see how JayneK tries to impose modern cosmology onto the concentric spheres model ... which is completely false.

I have not said anything supporting empty space, gravity, or modern cosmology. (Although I did mention that the idea of "vaccuм of space" did not exist in secular science at the time of the Church Fathers.) I have been making factual, well-supported statements about the beliefs of Catholics throughout our history. I'm not even interested in modern cosmology. For the record, it is true that the concentric sphere model has virtually nothing to do with modern cosmology. There is, however, no reason to think that I believe otherwise.

As always happens on this topic, Ladislaus and others descend to intellectually dishonest personal attacks when they run out of logical arguments. And I leave the discussion rather than push my ability to be polite and charitable past its limits.

I'll probably post again the next time I stumble across something so egregiously wrong that I feel compelled to say something about it. But I hope that this does not happen for a long time.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #193 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:41:19 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 21, 2023, 12:23:04 PM

St. Thomas supported the solid nature of the firmament in the Summa while believing the earth is a globe. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm Ergo, one cannot automatically assume that everyone who believes in a solid firmament believes the earth is flat. They are separate issues.

Yes and no. They're most certainly related. So if there's a ball suspended somehow in the middle of a firmament, that would then have to go all the way around it, what is it suspended on at the bottom? Recall that there was no concept of gravity at the time. As with St. Hildegard, the bottom part of said sphere was most likely solid and resting on the bottom of said firmament, solid consisting of water and Sheol ... and was therefore not inhabitable. You have to be aware of the nuances and not read a NASA ball floating through space into every mention of sphericity or rotundity.

Do you believe in a solid firmament with waters outside of it? I doubt it. Same question I asked Quo earlier.

If you look at the pictures post earlier of the Hebrew cosmology, the entire system most definitely has the shape of a sphere.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #194 on:** October 21, 2023, 12:49:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 21, 2023, 11:50:47 AM

So, do you believe that there's a solid sphere surrounding a globe earth and water outside of the solid sphere? I doubt JayneK believes that.

If the Church teaches that infallibly, I believe it without question. I haven’t studied that question enough to say that it is dogmatic, but it seems to me that it is most likely true.

Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28242 times)

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Pax Vobis

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Pax Vobis

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Pax Vobis

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat