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

Author Topic: What do Flat Earthers Believe is the Single Most Compelling Piece of Evidence..  (Read 60895 times)

0 Members and 82 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaynek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4161
  • Reputation: +2305/-1226
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I might see your point if she wasn't actually mocking them here also.  Why can't flat earthers post on SD themselves?  Or is flat earthism banned over there?
    I have tried to avoid mocking them in either forum, although I suspect I have sometimes become too irritated to always succeed at this.

    While there has not been an official announcement that flat earthism is a banned topic there, we can expect that it would be if people tried to promote it there.  

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is laughable that the heliocentrists here claim to see the revolution in the Church,  but fail to perceive it around heliocentrism.
    Fascinating stupidity.

    I agree. 

    It does, however, take awhile for some to understand why FE is important. Many will try to stifle discussion, and we are fortunate to have a forum here where the discussion is allowed. Thanks to the forum owner Matthew for that. 

    The idea of a flat earth is a bit frightening for some. I get that. I was never anti-flat earth because quite frankly I never gave it much thought until I watched a one-hour video on the now defunct ablf3 forum. I was intrigued by a few ideas in that video and decided to investigate it further. 

    Some flat-earthers become believers by, at first, being against it. They find that they can't really disprove it in a scientific way, even though they try. 

    It takes time, and a will for truth, AND a person has to be willing to be subjected to a lot of redicule, if they accept the flat earth. The latter being a difficult one to overcome sometimes. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not defunct.
    Google ablf3 and tapatalk.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27458/-5070
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • It's not defunct.
    Google ablf3 and tapatalk.

    So, Smedley, looks like you've been slandering JayneK.  She's owed a retraction and an apology.  I saw her post and you grossly mischaracterized it.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27458/-5070
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I rarely visit Suscipe Domine, but I'm not surprised that she would say that. She has a grudge against those CATHOLICS who believe in a flat earth.

    If only she would take the time to actually look into the flat earth, without any pre-conceived anti-flat earth ideas from her husband or whoever, then she might find that FE makes sense.

    I have not ruled out FE myself ... from a scientific standpoint.  Nevertheless, I find the flat-earther allegation that this is basically dogmatic truth to be really offputting.  I've already explained why I find that completely untenable.


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have not ruled out FE myself ... from a scientific standpoint.  Nevertheless, I find the flat-earther allegation that this is basically dogmatic truth to be really offputting.  I've already explained why I find that completely untenable.

    Either the earth is flat, or it is not. Two choices. I opt for it being flat.

    It's you and some others who are reading "dogma" in what is essentially just an obligation to see the earth as God made it. Sedes and their supporters seem overly-sensitive to the views of others, and are quick to judge.

    The shape of the earth is not dependent on any one person's view. We aren't cookie cutter Catholics who are all going to have the exact same view of FE.

    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have not ruled out FE myself ... from a scientific standpoint.  Nevertheless, I find the flat-earther allegation that this is basically dogmatic truth to be really offputting.  I've already explained why I find that completely untenable.
    Do you find the Bible's other literal dogmatic truths equally off-putting?
    Eat my flesh, drink my blood?

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, Smedley, looks like you've been slandering JayneK.  She's owed a retraction and an apology.  I saw her post and you grossly mischaracterized it.
    I certainly did not.
    She linked a CI thread in her echo chamber for the purpose of mocking flat earthers there, who cannot defend themselves. That's the slander, not my calling out her duplicity and insincere intentions on CI.


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Furthermore, why is a non-Resistance supporter who thinks flat earth is not true, not Biblical, who doesn't even adhere to geocentrism, and considers the whole topic unimportant to one's salvation even pontificating about it here on CI?
    Did she tell you about her talking about flat earthers on another board? No, she didn't.  I told you. That's dishonest. And she would not have told you either.
    So, enough is enough with the unserious, uneducated opinions of a woman who admits she knows little about it and also doesn't even care.
    Leave the flat earth discussion to those who have at least taken the time to study it.

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 531
    • Reputation: +116/-157
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Furthermore, why is a non-Resistance supporter who thinks flat earth is not true, not Biblical, who doesn't even adhere to geocentrism, and considers the whole topic unimportant to one's salvation even pontificating about it here on CI?
    Did she tell you about her talking about flat earthers on another board? No, she didn't.  I told you. That's dishonest. And she would not have told you either.
    So, enough is enough with the unserious, uneducated opinions of a woman who admits she knows little about it and also doesn't even care.
    Leave the flat earth discussion to those who have at least taken the time to study it.
    Exactly!  The same thing goes for Seven;  it's just obnoxious!  
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 531
    • Reputation: +116/-157
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Just earlier today you yourself used the phrase "problems associated with the globe earth theory, regarding its promotion of secular humanism". (Post #156 of this thread)

    This is clearly implies that Catholics may not hold that the earth is a globe because to do so promotes an erroneous, anti-Catholic belief system.  You are implying that the only position that Catholics may hold without sinning is that the earth is flat.  You fall short of explicitly claiming that flat earth is a Church dogma, but your posts are full of comments that imply it is the only licit position for Catholics.  This was just one example.

    If you insist on reading into my silence the opposite of what I have told you I actually think, I cannot stop you.  
    This post from Jaynek is very telling.  She's reading way too much into posts.  I mean she attacks Meg of all people.  How ridiculous is that!  Meg always goes out of her way to be polite and nice to everyone.  You would have to have very thin skin to be offended by Meg.  And I'm sorry, but Seven is just as bad.  
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."


    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 531
    • Reputation: +116/-157
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I mean, Jaynek judges people, not for what they actually say, but for what she takes great pains to read into their posts.  Reading the above post from Jaynek and Meg, it seems clear that Meg is trying to say that Heliocentrism led to a loss of faith among many Catholics.  This of course is a matter of historical opinion, but it is an opinion that is held by many historians.  I mean, if The Bible depicts a flat stationary Earth (which isn't even controversial, sorry if you didn't know that, but it does), then many people would reject it, based on a "scientific" belief that the Earth is a spinning globe.  

    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4161
    • Reputation: +2305/-1226
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Reading the above post from Jaynek and Meg, it seems clear that Meg is trying to say that Heliocentrism led to a loss of faith among many Catholics.  This of course is a matter of historical opinion, but it is an opinion that is held by many historians.  I mean, if The Bible depicts a flat stationary Earth (which isn't even controversial, sorry if you didn't know that, but it does), then many people would reject it, based on a "scientific" belief that the Earth is a spinning globe.  
    It is not Heliocentrism that leads to a loss of faith, but rather trying to use exegetical principles other than those taught by the Church.  When people try to use the Bible to determine matters of physical science, it is inevitable that there be apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, as well as within Scripture itself, because that is not its intended meaning.  When people accept the Church teaching that Scripture does not intend to speak of physical science, there will never be such conflicts.  There will never even be a temptation to reject Scripture for the reason you suggest.  The Church, in her wisdom, long ago solved this problem.  This exegetical principle goes back to St. Basil and St. Augustine and, starting with Leo XIII, appears in the magisterial writing of several popes.

    Concerns about people rejecting Scripture because of science is normally a Protestant problem.  Due to their heresy, they try to interpret Scripture for themselves without the wisdom of the Church to guide them.  Of course, they will run into problems.  But there is no reason for Catholics to see this as an issue.

    If you have science based reasons to believe the earth is flat, go ahead.  But appealing to Scripture for support is a rejection of Church teaching on Scriptural exegesis and of the Church's authority as sole interpreter of Scripture.  It is a serious error.

    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 518
    • Reputation: +217/-455
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's not true. I have Popes. Here's one:


    Pope Benedict XV - 1921, In Praeclara Summorum, On Dante:"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment."


    What's this suppose to prove?

    That you don't know how to read?


    Spheres can refer to the sun and moon.


    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 518
    • Reputation: +217/-455
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Jaynek,
    Not everything before VII was perfect.
    The Popes can make mistakes.

    I'm not having a discussion with you further than that because you are not looking at the science. It is created by God and you turn your back on it.