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 58679 times)

0 Members and 47 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaynek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4161
  • Reputation: +2305/-1226
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • The only troll here is the one who suddenly appeared from SD a month ago to mock Catholics who believe what God reveals about His Creation in the Bible.
    Anyone can check my profile and see that this is not true.

    Quote
    Username:Jaynek
    Posts:1618 (0.676 per day)
    Date Registered:June 12, 2011, 03:37:49 AM
    I have been a member of this forum for over six years and written well over a thousand posts on a variety of topics.  In September 2017, I started posting more frequently here than I have been for a while because I was feeling less comfortable on the forum I usually posted on.  Towards the end of November I got interested in the flat earth topic.  It is all there in my post history for anyone who bothers to look.

    Smedley told yet another easily disprovable lie.  This is a typical troll behaviour.  They post things that are false to provoke people into posting corrections.  As I understand it, it gives them a feeling of power to manipulate people into posting.

    Smedley's profile, by the way, shows a new poster who joined on December 22 (i.e. less than two weeks ago) who has written around 70 posts, primarily on this topic.

    At this point, I am certain enough he is trolling that will treat him like one and stop responding.  People should expect to see him make more and more outrageous comments in order to get a response.  There will probably be a lot more lies, so I recommend checking anything he writes before believing it.

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4161
    • Reputation: +2305/-1226
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Pope Benedict XV makes it clear that Scripture is not limited to matters of religion only.

    You do seem to take the modernist position.
    You did not answer my question.  Did you read the entire texts of Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • You did not answer my question.  Did you read the entire texts of Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?

    I don't have to answer your question.

    You still believe that Scripture does not relate to matters of science, but only to matters of faith? 
    "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 happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • You did not answer my question.  Did you read the entire texts of Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?
    The quotes provided speak for themselves. It isn't possible that Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, according to the Church. Also, Vatican I condemned the modernist notion that if something isn't defined, we don't have to believe it.  

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • The quotes provided speak for themselves. It isn't possible that Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, according to the Church. Also, the Church condemned the modernist notion that if something isn't defined, we don't have to believe it when the Church has a history of teaching it in other ways.  


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • If a Catholic believes that Scripture speaks only to matters of faith, and not to the sciences, then I have to assume that they also believe, as the modernists do, that faith and science are to be kept separate.

    Here's a quote from Pope St. Pius X, on the Doctrine of the Modernists, from Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I'm quoting part of #16, called "Faith and Science." He is speaking to the doctrine of the modernists regarding faith and science:

    #16:

    Faith and Science

    "Having reached this point, venerable brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be 'unknowable' for it. Hence, each has a separate field assigned for it: science is to be entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissention between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore be in contradiction."


    "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 happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • If a Catholic believes that Scripture speaks only to matters of faith, and not to the sciences, then I have to assume that they also believe, as the modernists do, that faith and science are to be kept separate.

    Here's a quote from Pope St. Pius X, on the Doctrine of the Modernists, from Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I'm quoting part of #16, called "Faith and Science." He is speaking to the doctrine of the modernists regarding faith and science:

    #16:

    Faith and Science

    "Having reached this point, venerable brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be 'unknowable' for it. Hence, each has a separate field assigned for it: science is to be entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissention between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore be in contradiction."
    Such an excellent point.  Jaynek would have us believe the Church cannot understand science, or contradicts true science, or really has no business proscribing false science.  That way, acting the modernist, all she has to do is drop the parts of truth she doesn't like into the science sand box and make ridiculous claims that the Church is forbidden to play there.   

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4161
    • Reputation: +2305/-1226
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • I don't have to answer your question.

    You still believe that Scripture does not relate to matters of science, but only to matters of faith?
    I am assuming that your refusal to answer the question means that you have not read the full texts.  That could explain why you seem to misunderstand them.
    It is the clear teaching of three papal encyclicals that Scripture does not intend to teach about science.  Of course, I believe it.  I accept Church teaching.


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • I am assuming that your refusal to answer the question means that you have not read the full texts.  That could explain why you seem to misunderstand them.
    It is the clear teaching of three papal encyclicals that Scripture does not intend to teach about science.  Of course, I believe it.  I accept Church teaching.

    You seem have the false Modernist belief that faith and science are not connected, and that they are separate.
    "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 Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4161
    • Reputation: +2305/-1226
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The quotes provided speak for themselves. It isn't possible that Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, according to the Church. Also, Vatican I condemned the modernist notion that if something isn't defined, we don't have to believe it.  
    There is no question of Scripture being scientifically inaccurate because it is not intending to say anything about science.  Even fallible humans like you and I cannot make mistakes on a subject we are silent on.

    There is a problem when people read unintended teachings about science into Scripture.  These can be wrong and unfortunately, may be misunderstood as harming the credibility of Scripture.

    You yourself posted the quote which showed that an interpretation of Scripture needs to be decreed or magisterially taught in order to be considered infallible.  There was nothing in Vatican I about people getting to make their own interpretations of Scripture.  I certainly am under no obligation to believe the things you read into Scripture that the Church has not taught.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • I am assuming that your refusal to answer the question means that you have not read the full texts.  That could explain why you seem to misunderstand them.
    It is the clear teaching of three papal encyclicals that Scripture does not intend to teach about science.  Of course, I believe it.  I accept Church teaching.
    The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city.   Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form.   St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth," - "so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.


    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4161
    • Reputation: +2305/-1226
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • You seem have the false Modernist belief that faith and science are not connected, and that they are separate.
    Your comment confirms that you have not understood what I believe.  

    Of course, faith and science are connected.  They are both at the service of truth and should work together.  Faith, however, is the greater and science must always submit to faith if there seems to be a conflict.  The dogmas of our faith are infallible while science is never infallible.  It is always subject to change.

    However, when people misunderstand Church teachings and interpret Scripture in opposition to how we should, this not part of our Faith and is very much fallible.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Your comment confirms that you have not understood what I believe.  

    Of course, faith and science are connected.  They are both at the service of truth and should work together.  Faith, however, is the greater and science must always submit to faith if there seems to be a conflict.  The dogmas of our faith are infallible while science is never infallible.  It is always subject to change.

    However, when people misunderstand Church teachings and interpret Scripture in opposition to how we should, this not part of our Faith and is very much fallible.

     What is our faith based on?
    "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 happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • There is no question of Scripture being scientifically inaccurate because it is not intending to say anything about science.  Even fallible humans like you and I cannot make mistakes on a subject we are silent on.

    There is a problem when people read unintended teachings about science into Scripture.  These can be wrong and unfortunately, may be misunderstood as harming the credibility of Scripture.

    You yourself posted the quote which showed that an interpretation of Scripture needs to be decreed or magisterially taught in order to be considered infallible.  There was nothing in Vatican I about people getting to make their own interpretations of Scripture.  I certainly am under no obligation to believe the things you read into Scripture that the Church has not taught.
    Scripture is anything but silent on the science of geography, explaining the earth is underneath a hard, firmament dome, that water is above the firmament, that the sun, moon and stars revolve within the firmament, and that above the firmament is heaven, that the firmament shows the glory of God, etc.  It also tells us that earth is fixed, on pillars and is bound up with heaven like a block of stone.  Now these cannot be a lie and must be accepted at face value.  But Scripture goes further describing earth like a wax seal with upturned edges.  Certainly none of these even remotely suggest earth is a ball.  Reason also tells us that people don't stick to the outside of a ball walking around opposite each other, or that vast amounts of water just magically stick to a ball while a small child can jump and play freely next to the shores of the sea.  The person who believes such nonsense ought to hang their head in shame.    

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4161
    • Reputation: +2305/-1226
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city.   Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form.   St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth," - "so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
    None of these things overrides explicit teaching in papal encyclicals.  
    BTW, Pope Benedict XV mentioned that Dante's understanding was wrong in In Preaclara Summorum.