I can see it was not clear enough for you to understand, but I would not go as far as to call it incoherent.
You quoted question 3. I first made the point that a docuмent that you yourself had cited contained a section that supported what I was saying and quoted question 7 to demonstrate this. Then I went on to discuss question 3 and your claims about it. In hindsight, I think it would have been clearer the other way around.
Your quote was immediately preceded by the words: "Is it possible, in particular, to call in question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in these same chapters that touch the ..." Taken as a whole we can see that you quoted one item from a list of Scriptural facts that cannot be questioned because they are foundational to our faith. I, of course, agree that it wrong to question the fact that the creation of all things was accomplished by God at the beginning of time. I agree that it is an important part of the faith. It is even part of the Creed.
You seem to understand what you quoted as saying that everything pertaining to creation should be understood in a literalistic way, but that is not correct. For example, further on in the same docuмent, we see that it is not necessary to interpret the seven days of creation as literal 24 hour periods. Please see the thread I started on what the expression "literal sense of Scripture" means for more details.
It is wrong to insist that Scripture must be interpreted in a literalistic way and that therefore Catholics are obliged to believe in a flat earth. This position involves rejecting the teaching of Providentissimus Deus. This is the sin that needs to be repented of.
It is quite true that nowhere does it say that we must believe in a globe shaped earth. It does not follow from this that a flat earth is part of the Catholic faith. I keep insisting that it is wrong to believe in a flat earth because one mistakenly thinks it is an obligatory part of the faith. It may be acceptable to believe in a flat earth for other reasons.
No, it has nothing to do with assuming that the earth is a globe. Ladislaus, who is open to the possibility that the earth is flat has, like me, expressed that he thinks it is wrong to interpret Scripture so as to claim that belief in a flat earth is part of the Catholic faith. He seems to understand Providentissimus Deus much as I do.
It seems that kiwiboy wants to establish that I am a heretic for believing in a spherical earth. I think it is fair to call someone with such a goal a "dogmatic flat earther." It is interesting that he sees Meg as working with him on this goal when she denies being such a thing.
On the questions question. Question 7 only refers to the literal interpretation of 7 days. It doesnt talk about the nature of the creation itself.
My quote was immediately preceded by those words, and the answer was NO.
I never said that everything relating to be creation in a literalistic way. The Bible is not a science book. But you are wrong to attack people for interpreting it in a literalistic way. Because the science supports us on certain points notbaly, the non curvature of the earth.
It is therefore NOT wrong to insist that certain point be interpretated in a literalistic way, ESPECIALLY when science supports that point.
So your sin to repent of is attacking people over this particular point and attacks on people intrepreting scripture literally in general.
Topic: What do Flat Earthers Believe is the Single Most Compelling Piece of Evidence.. (Read 62324 times)