Author Topic: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory (Read 13385 times)

deutschcath · « **Reply #25 on:** July 10, 2017, 10:01:06 AM »

Mr Cassini,

You have given ONE private revelation, I have given the Fathers of the Church and the Magisterium. So unless you have something more to add, I think it is obvious who is on the right side.

By the way, your quote can also mean the globe of CREATION. See diagrams posted earlier in this thread. Further, even one of the Fathers, perhaps two adopted the error that the earth was round, so it would not be surprising if Mary of Agreda fell for it.

Finally we should be careful of translations. Orbis means circle, and yet it translated globe because people just make the false assumption that the earth it a globe.

I think that trying to tell others what they should put in their posts (when you disagree with them!) shows what a desperate position you are now in. If you can't be humble, then at least be quiet.

BC · « **Reply #26 on:** July 10, 2017, 12:10:31 PM »

Quote from: cassini on June 17, 2017, 09:03:11 AM

Out of nowhere came this flat-earth theory, claiming it too is revealed in Scripture. Yes they can quote some Fathers, some saints, and some philosophers who also held the Bible teaches a flat earth. Then, like the heliocentric/geocentric science, they can show reasons as to its credibility. However, their theory needs to deny so much it falls into the ridiculous. All space photos of a global earth are fakes according to their theory, the science of geodesy is useless, and astronomical distances of the earth, sun, moon and planets have to be made fit their mathematics and not according to 500 years of measuring and planes and ships may think they are moving around a global-earth when in fact they are going in flat-earth circles. No doubt they will continue to insist their science is credible and that is their position.

NASA's astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but heliocentrists have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Nicolas Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Nowadays they have settled around 93 million for the time-being.

“As the sun, according to ‘science’ may be anything from 3 to 104 million miles away, there is plenty of ‘space’ to choose from. It is like the showman and the child. You pay your money - for various astronomical works - and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be ‘very scientific’ and to be ‘mathematically certain’ of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions. You will at least have plenty of ‘space’ to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice. You can always add a few millions to ‘keep up with the times,’ or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the ‘very latest’ accurate column of figures. Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy - full of surprises. One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” http://ifers.123.st/t129-the-size-and-distance-of-the-sun-moon

Cassini, as I said over at FE, I respect all your work done on Geocentrism. It seems if anyone is making up distances, it very well could be the Masonic scientist astronomers/NASA. As Astronomer Tycho Brahe observed:

“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”- Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588

Johannes Kepler took over Brahe's work and reconfigured the paradigm that is now accepted for astronomy. And yet:

After 400 Years, a Challenge to Kepler: He Fabricated His Data, Scholar Says

JOHANNES KEPLER, the father of modern astronomy, fabricated data in presenting his theory of how the planets move around the Sun, apparently to bolster acceptance of the insight by skeptics, a scholar has found.

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. ''Kepler was one of the people who invented modern science,'' said Walter W. Stewart, a researcher with the National Institutes of Health who is helping Congress investigate cases of scientific fraud. ''It's not clear his standards were the same as ours.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/after-400-years-a-challenge-to-kepler-he-fabricated-his-data-scholar-says.html?pagewanted=all

I am wondering though how you account for the solid Firmament above, with your paradigm being essentially the same as Heliocentrists regarding space ball planets, distances, space exploration, etc. etc.

Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

St. Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236

Saint Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength....‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’ Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words, ‘Let there be a firmament [Gen. 1:6],’ it is not said ‘and the firmament was made’ but, ‘God made the firmament, and God divided between the water that was under the firmament and between the water that was above the firmament [Gen. 1:7].’. Saint Basil, “Hom. III(9),” Hexaemeron, NPNF, 2nd Ser., Vol. VIII.

....But as far as concerns the separation of the waters I am obliged to contest the opinion of certain writers in the church who, under the shadow of high and sublime conceptions, have launched out into metaphor and have seen in the waters only a figure to denote spiritual and incorporeal powers. In the higher regions, accordingly, above the firmament, dwell the better; in the lower regions, earth and matter are the dwelling place of the malignant. So, say they, God is praised by the waters that are above the heavens, that is to say, by the good powers, the purity of whose soul makes them worthy to sing the praises of God. And the waters that are under the heavens represent the wicked spirits, who from their natural height have fallen into the abyss of evil. Turbulent, seditious, agitated by the tumultuous waves of passion, they have received the name of sea, because of the instability and the inconstancy of their movements. Let us reject these theories as dreams and old women’s tales. "Hexaemeron" 3.9. in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 8:70-71.

Unless we are contesting this reality described Scripture and the Church Fathers, how can there be any spaceships, satellites and rockets flying off tens of thousands of miles into space to distant moons and planets?

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #27 on:** March 10, 2018, 05:09:37 AM »

Quote from: Meg on June 27, 2017, 09:58:33 AM

Do you have a link for the above? I can't find anything online called, "The Doctrine of Geocentrism by Andrew White."

Yeah right, Cassini seems to refuse to provide links to the stuff he posts. Yet he wants to claim it has authority. Ha!, it's just him talking/plagarizing.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #28 on:** March 10, 2018, 08:23:48 AM »

Quote from: hismajesty on June 18, 2017, 02:28:17 PM

Why is it called Flat Earth if nothing in the diagram is flat? I think the use of the term flat earth and flat earther is like calling oneself a Lefevbrist or Feeneyite, they are pejorative labels created by their antagonist enemies, why accept them?

happenby · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2018, 12:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on March 10, 2018, 08:23:48 AM

Why is it called Flat Earth if nothing in the diagram is flat? I think the use of the term flat earth and flat earther is like calling oneself a Lefevbrist or Feeneyite, they are pejorative labels created by their antagonist enemies, why accept them?

Flat meaning, the earth itself is not a whirling globe. Flat earth includes valleys and mountains, hell below, heaven above, indeed collectively a globe. Yes, flat earth is a bit of a misnomer.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory (Read 13385 times)

deutschcath

Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory

BC

Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory

Last Tradhican

Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory

happenby

Re: Theological reasons against the flat-earth theory