Synopsis

Hey Bruthuh! I gotsta know!

This is far much more of a reality than an opinion. The lowest form of socially forced and normalized human interaction is determined by the least amount of responsibility and accountability where the mentally ill are held uncontested, supported, protected, and/or cherished in their radically destructive psychological and social ideals and practices. Reason, sanity, proper response, self defense, and intervention with the mentally ill for their raically destructive psychological and social ideals and practices are viewed like self defense firearms and are taken away in any way possible from upstanding and honorable individuals protecting their rights for psychological and social integrity by a focused, directed, disarming, and determined agenda. All a part of the psychological and sociological programming and it is amazing and alarming how damaging and wide spread the psychological and sociological programming has reached even in vestiges of normally known and trusted responsible or authoritative entities with even more destructive forceful effect for the mentally ill. Not me. All a part of the plan to destoy The United States Of America True Patriot Citizens and Western Societies in general to eradicate honorable, peaceable, sustainable, and productive social interactions and activities. Where Socialism rises from the ashes proclaiming to potect the masses. All the more reason to maintain the fight against the mentally ill. No matter what. Who ever and where ever they are in what ever the mentally ill are doing to destroy reason, sanity, proper response, self defense, and intervention to advance the mentally ill psychological and sociological destructive agenda. No matter who or how many the mentally ill are or whatever form they demonstrate the Saul Alinsky "useful" "idiot" practices - even the normally known and trusted responsible or authoritative entities for their "useful" "idiot" practices. Promoting lies and attacking people who are proclaiming and practicing the truth while the mentally ill are calling the individuals and people in general proclaiming and practicing the truth the liars. Good is Bad. Bad is Good. Not me. Not now. Not ever. Even like the Continental Soldiers fighting against the tyranny of the times. For Freedom in every form.

If it were simply a matter of vegan vs. meat or sushi vs. steak or favorite sports team or WWE or hobby or fishing or hunting or whatever. No big deal. When people are imminently threatened with harm or are openly vilified for a substantive belief and practice then the perpetrators need to be confronted for their practices. Open operation of a Cult is at best counter productive and does result in harm. Many outside sources of different origin have noted “flat” Earth as a Cult and rightly so. I am very reluctant to come to that conclusion but have no choice based on the evidence and personal experience. Cult and Multi Level Marketing have much the same techniques and practices with the intent to harm and take advantage all under the guise of carefully crafted lies while the Cultist or MLM Bottom Feeder all claim to act in the best interest of the one they are harming and taking advantage of. The “flat” Earth movement is, concerningly, growing and is harassing and is becoming more militant. As I noted, I can’t sit and do nothing while the “flat” Earth movement threatens, harasses, vilifies, demonizes, and incredulously insults others while attempting to disrupt and cause chaos. Or leave it for succeeding individuals to address.

Not really. The "flat" Earth crowd has been noted as damaging to the Gospel Of God The Son Jesus Christ and has no place whatsoever anyplace with the misinformation / disinformation / and outright lies. Yet the "flat" Earth "advocates" continue to troll, insult, demonize, and otherwise harass individuals who know and practice the truth about a Spherical (geoidal) Earth. The "flat" Earth "advocates" drone on, insult, and harass with senseless and absurd nonsense. Even some "flat" Earth "advocates" are a danger to school children and society in general. https://www.facebook.com/RingofFireRadio/videos/flat-earther-arrested-for-harassing-children-on-playground/2738231286272014/ And, of course, harassing bone fide astronauts who REALLY went to the Moon and back safely. https://www.facebook.com/rsvlts/videos/buzz-aldrin-punches-a-damn-commie-in-the-face-for-saying-the-m/1018772111536530/ Good Job, Buzz!!! @cranman are these "flat" Earth people YOU really want to be around???!!! Be around YOUR family, kids, grandkids???!!! These family members all have a tough enough time as it is so WHY, pray tell, HAVE "flat" Earth "proponents" promote a LIE and harass people???!!! The evidence is clear there is NO "flat" Earth and "flat" Earth "proponents" promote their "philosophy" with malice so really needs to be addressed and prevented from spreading. Wherever and whenever. To avoid harming people. Including themselves. Lest we forget. And leave the honorable battle to those less fortunate and less equipped against the evil onslaught of "flat" Earth. ALL the information I have posted is CREDIBLE. Unlike posted "flat" Earth "information". BIG difference. With ONLY a cursory assessment of the information I have posted then getting into the substance of the matter to see extensively how corrupt, evil, and absurd "flat" Earth REALLY IS.

This guy is a Roman Catholic Doctorate AND NAILS IT!!! TOO much TO UNPACK!!! A MUST SEE!!! Starting at 48:10 with Isaiah 66:1 the "footstool" verse then going to 51:10...................then 51:26....................BOOM!!! God The Father is Spirit AND has NO feet!!! YYYEEEAAAHHH BBBAAABBBYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ENJOY!!!

Well, THERE, prayed AND TOLD, YOU ("flat" Earth "advocates") have IT!!! Thomas Aquinas died in 1274 Ano Domini AND STATED THEE Earth IS Spherical BEFORE he died!!! Starting at the 2:10............... Enjoy!!!

The excerpt: Among the early-medieval writers who held a spherical-earth theory, Augustine (354-430), Jerome (d. 420), and Ambrose (d. 420) all agreed that the earth was a sphere. There is some debate about Isidore of Seville (d. 636), a prolific encyclopedist and natural philosopher, but this based on his statement that “everyone experiences the size and heat of the sun in the same manner.” But this statement likely implies that the sun’s shape did not alter as it progressed around the earth. Indeed, much of Isidore’s physics and astronomy can only be understood to depend on a spherical earth. The article: Myths about Science and Religion: That Medieval Christians Taught that the Earth was Flat Here is the classic story. People living in the “Dark Ages” were so ignorant (or so deceived by Catholic priests) that they believed the earth was flat. For thousands of years they lingered in ignorant obscurity, and were it not for the heroic bravery of Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) and other explorers, they might well have continued in this ignorance for even longer. Thus it was the innovation and courage of investors and explorers, motivated by economic goals and modern curiosity, that finally allowed us to break free from the shackles forged by the medieval Catholic church. In the nineteenth century, scholars interested in promoting a new scientific and rational view of the world claimed that ancient Greeks and Romans had understood that the world was round, but that this knowledge was suppressed by medieval churchmen. Unfortunately most of this classic story is fiction. Very few people throughout the Middle Ages believed that the world was flat. Thinkers on both sides of the question were Catholics, and for them, the shape of the earth did not equate with progressive or traditionalist views. As Russell writes, “All educated people throughout Europe know the earth’s spherical shape and its approximate circumference.” Further, Columbus could not have proved that the world was round, because this fact was already known. Nor was he a rebellious modern—he was a good Catholic and undertook his voyage believing he was doing God’s work. In this entry I will be combing notes from Lesley B. Cormack’s article entitled, “That Medieval Christians Taught that the Earth was Flat,” found in Numbers’ Galileo goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion (2009), and Jeffrey Burton Russell’s short but illuminating book,Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (Praeger, 1991). Russell calls this very popular and common myth the “Flat Earth Error.” According to Russell, the very statement that “Columbus proved the world was round,”presents logical difficulties. “Since Columbus did not ever sail around the world, it was not until Magellan’s men came back from circumnavigating the globe in 1522 tat the sphericity of the planet could be absolutely proved empirically.” In addition to logical problems, there are also problems of conflation. The idea of geocentricity is often linked in the modern mind with the idea of flatness, but the two are separate. With few exceptions, educated people before Copernicus (1473-1543) in face believed that the planets revolved around the earth rather than around the sun. However, the idea that the earth is spherical is sharply distinct from the idea that the earth is at the center of the cosmos. In Cormack’s short essay, she maintains that scholars of antiquity developed a very clear spherical model of the earth and the heavens, and that early-medieval writers continued that model. Every major Greek geographical thinker, including Aristotle (384-322 BC), Eratosthenes (fl. third century BC), and Ptolemy (fl. second century BC), based on his geographical and astronomical work on the theory that the earth was a sphere. Among the early-medieval writers who held a spherical-earth theory, Augustine (354-430), Jerome (d. 420), and Ambrose (d. 420) all agreed that the earth was a sphere. There is some debate about Isidore of Seville (d. 636), a prolific encyclopedist and natural philosopher, but this based on his statement that “everyone experiences the size and heat of the sun in the same manner.” But this statement likely implies that the sun’s shape did not alter as it progressed around the earth. Indeed, much of Isidore’s physics and astronomy can only be understood to depend on a spherical earth. From the seventh century to the fourteenth, every important medieval thinker concerned about the natural world stated more or less explicitly that the world was a round globe. Among them were Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Roger Bacon (d. 1294), Albertus Magnus (d. 1280), Michael Scot (d. 1234), Jean de Sacrobosco (d. 1256), and Pierre d’Ailly (d. 1410), whose work Columbus himself carefully consulted. Russell added to this list Jean Buridan (d. 1358), Nicole Oresme (d. 1382), and Giles of Rome (d. 1316), all discussed the rotation of the earthly sphere. Both Cormack and Russell also point out that even popular vernacular writers in the Middle Ages supported the idea of a round earth. Jean de Mandeville’s Travels(c. 1370) was quite explicit in stating that the world was round and navigable. Dante (d. 1321) in the Divine Comedy described the world as a sphere several times. In Chaucer’s (d. 1400) The Canterbury Tales, he spoke of “This wyde world, which that men seye is round.” The one medieval writer explicitly to deny the sphericity of the earth was Cosmas Indicopleustes (fl. sixth century). But according to Russell, Cosmas had absolutely no influence on medieval thought. Indeed, “the first translation of Cosmas into Latin, his very first introduction into western Europe, was not until 1706.” Russell also has an important discussion of the nature of maps and map-making in the Middle Ages. “Medieval maps,” he writes, “did not attempt to conform to criteria set for a modern atlas.” We have a little over 1,000 maps of the earth from the eighth through the fifteenth century that have survived. These “mappaemundi” come in several varieties. They are almost all flat—as are the maps in a modern atlas—and usually represent “oikoumene“, or the known world. That is, most were intended to represent only a portion of a spherical world. The purpose of a mappaemundi, moreover, was to convey moral truth or sacred or political history, not a snapshot of the size and shape of the earth. The mappaemundi were not meant to be practical, and the only reason they survive is because they were revered and thus preserved. Practical maps from the Middle Ages do exist, and are of two major types: one is the crude but effective sketch that shows, for example, what towns one encounters on a journey between York and London and in what order; the other is the navigational “portolan chart,” both accurate and detailed, which used longitude and latitude as coordinates. A pictorial demonstration of the round earth in the early middle ages is in the portraits of kings holding the symbols of their power. One standard item of regalia, Russell tells us, is the royal “orb,” which the king holds in his hand. Indeed, it is a golden ball representing the earth, surmounted by a cross indicating Christ’s sovereignty over the earth. With very few exceptions, all major scholars and many vernacular writers interested in the physical shape of the earth, from the fall of Rome to the time of Columbus, articulated the theory that the earth was round. Fifteenth-century astronomers, geographers, philosophers, and theologians, far from disputing sphercitiy, wrote sophisticated treatises based on Aristotle and the “geography” of Ptolemy of Alexandria. Given this background, it would be silly to argue that Columbus proved the world was round. However, popular accounts continue to circulate the erroneous story that Columbus fought the prejudiced and ignorant scholars and clerics at Salamance, the home of Spain’s leading university, before convincing Queen Isabella to let him try to prove his position. No such thing ever happened. As Russell writes, “The courage of the rationalist confronted by the crushing weight of tradition and its cruel institutions of repression is appealing, exciting—and baseless.” There were real objections to Columbus’ voyage, however. Around 1484 Columbus first proposed the voyage to King John of Portugal, but the king rejected it for economic and political reasons. When Columbus turned to the Spanish monarch Ferdinand and Isabella, he found them preoccupied with the unification of Spain. With these political hesitations also came intellectual ones. Ferdinand and Isabella referred Columbus to a royal commission headed by Hernando de Talavera, who was Archbishop of Granada. Of the objections posed to Columbus at the commission, none involved questioning sphericity. Rather, his opponents, citing the traditional measurements of the globe according to Ptolemy, argued that the circumference of the earth was too great and the distance too far to allow a successful western passage. The commission adjourned without coming to an agreement. Between 1486 and 1490, Columbus carefully prepared calculations to once again defend his plans. In 1490 another commissioned reconvened and again rejected Columbus’ plans. And their doubts were understandable, for Columbus had cooked his own arguments. Columbus had redefined terms and conflated accounts of measurements from different geographers. He calculated, for example, the distance between the Canaries and Japan at about 4,450 km. The modern figure is 22,000 km. In other word, “he estimated the voyage at about 20 percent its actual length.” After long poltical maneurving and many disappointments, Columbus at last in April 1492 obtained Queen Isabella’s support. According to Russell, “Columbus’ opponents, misinformed as they were, had more science and reason on their side than he did on his. He had political ability, stubborn determination, and courage.” As we have seen, there is virtually no historical evidence to support the myth of a medieval flat earth. Christian clerics neither suppressed the truth nor stifled debate on this subject. Columbus didn’t prove the earth was round—he stumbled on a continent that happened to be in his way. So, contrary to all the evidence, why does “The Flat Error” persist? What are the origins of this myth, and why do educated people continue to believe it? Russell provides an argument that is as illuminating as it is disturbing. The origins of the Error, says Russell, are found in nineteenth- and twentieth-century writers, with middle-class Enlightenment anticlericalism in Europe and “know-nothing” anticatholicism in the United States. The origin of the Error resides in these milieus. Throughout the nineteenth century, middle-class liberal progressives projected their own ideals upon the heroes of the past. Here Russell discuses the positivism of the nineteenth century morphing into the progressivism of today. Philosophers of “progress” such as Hegel (1770-1831) Comte (1798-1857), John W. Draper (1811-1882), Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), and Charles Raymond Beazley (1868-1955) wrote about the “infinite falsehood constituting the life ans spirit of the Middle Ages.” Comte had laid the philosophical basis for positivism with the argument that the history of humanity shows an unsteady but definite progress from reliance on magic, then religion, then philosophy, then natural science. Positivism went on to extend beyond the natural science to historical positivism, the idea that history advances toward truth about the human past in successive approximations. “Progressivists did not choose to understand other societies in those societies’ terms, but, rather, chose to hold them to the standards of the nineteenth-century scientific method.” The Error must be true, it appears, because it fits modern preconceptions about the Middle Ages. But perhaps this Error was most solidly embedded in the modern mind not by “scholarly” literature, but by the novel. Russell focuses on Washington Irving (1738-1859), whose romantic tale of Columbus the hero swayed all. He turned the story of Columbus into a work of art, in which he plays the hero of a romantic novel, or epic modern Odysseus or a Faust casting a giant wager against fate, or a mythic American Adam, the First Man of the New World. But the idea that “Columbus showed that the world was round” is an invention. So, despite all the evidence to the contrary, why does the Error persist? Why, especially after the work of so many respected, widely read, modern historians of science, the Error continues to be as persistent as in the educated mind as it was a century ago? According to Russell, historians, scientists, scholars, and other writers often wittingly or unwittingly repeat and propagate errors of fact or interpretation. No one can be automatically believed or trusted without checking methodology and sources. Further, scholars and scientists often are led by their biases more than by the evidence. The Error had been so firmly established that it was easier to lie back and believe it: easier not to check the sources; easier to fit the consensus; easier to fit the preconceived worldview; easier to avoid the discipline needed in order to dislodge a firmly held error. “Religion and science had not been at war until the Draper-White thesis made them so.” The assumption of the superiority of “our” views to that of older cultures is another stubborn blinder. The hope that we are making progress toward a goal leads us to undervalue the past in order to convince ourselves of the superiority of the present. The explanation of this pattern for Russell is that the Error is part of a much larger modern faith in progress. “Our determination to believe the Flat Error,” he writes, “arises out of our contempt for the past and our need to believe in the superiority of the present.” Finally, fallacies or “myths” of this nature take on a life of their own, creating a dialectic with each other and eventually making a “cycle of myths” reinforcing one another. Thus the modern “secular” worldview is based more upon what we think happened than what really happened. A shared body of myths, especially ones told in such dramatic and sensationalist terms, can overwhelm reason and evidence. Russell concludes with a poignant—if not sombre—realization, that “the search for truth is long and laborious and easily set aside. And since the present is transformed day by day, minute by minute, second by second, into the past, while the future is unknown and unknowable, we are left on the dark sea without stars, without compass or astrolabe, more unsure of our position and our goal than of Columbus’ sailors. The terror of meaninglessness, of falling off the edge of knowledge, is greater than the imagined fear of falling off the edge of the earth. And so we prefer to believe a familiar error than to search, unceasingly, the darkness.” https://jamescungureanu.com/2013/03/14/myths-about-science-and-religion-that-medieval-christians-taught-that-the-earth-was-flat/ So much for Roman Catholics burning people at the stake for confessing the Earth is Spherical!!!

The excerpt: The story is indeed so utterly ridiculous–indeed, the headline could well have been, “Look, religious people are nuts!”–one wonders why on earth the editors of the Tribune saw fit to run it all. I guess religious people contradicting reality makes good news. I don’t think anyone realizes just how damaging this kind of foolishness is to the credibility of the gospel in our scientific age. There is both much to admire and something to critique in our common scientific approach to the universe, but we believers can’t be a credible part of the conversation if we won’t recognize the truth and value science offers to the human family. The article: Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway Published July 5, 2011 From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?” The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation. The story is indeed so utterly ridiculous–indeed, the headline could well have been, “Look, religious people are nuts!”–one wonders why on earth the editors of the Tribune saw fit to run it all. I guess religious people contradicting reality makes good news. I don’t think anyone realizes just how damaging this kind of foolishness is to the credibility of the gospel in our scientific age. There is both much to admire and something to critique in our common scientific approach to the universe, but we believers can’t be a credible part of the conversation if we won’t recognize the truth and value science offers to the human family. https://uscatholic.org/blog/catholic-flat-earthers-almost-anyway/

The excerpt: Innumerable pieces of evidence Besides the argument from iconography, it would suffice to open any scholarly book by a Catholic clergyman from this extensive period to put an end to the myth of medieval flat-earthism. We know that Christopher Columbus famously based his own audacious enterprise on an unfinished work by Pope Pius II (†1458), Historia rerum ubique gestarum, which the explorer had annotated. In the very first lines of this work, which was intended to be encyclopedic, Pius II asserts that “Almost everyone agrees that the shape of the world [= universe] is spherical [rotundam]4; they likewise agree about this concerning the Earth.” In the same work, the pope addresses the measurements of the earth’s circumference made by Eratosthenes (3rd century B.C.) and Ptolemy (2nd century B.C.). Christopher Columbus had also annotated the Imago mundi, a work by Cardinal Pierre D’Ailly (†1420). In it, the learned cardinal held forth on the radius and volume of the terrestrial sphere, climate zones according to latitude, and even the poles. For example, he states as a logical conclusion that “those who inhabited the Pole would have the sun above their horizon for half of the year and continuous night for the other half”5, which is remarkably accurate. The article: Flat Earth? The Hidden Side of a Hoax JULY 11, 2023 SOURCE: DISTRICT OF THE USA No, the hoax in question doesn’t come from NASA. It refers to the stubborn yet false idea that the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth, and to the ideological underpinnings of this myth. Captions, L-R: The “Handsome God” of the cathedral in Reims (13th century), holding the globe in his hand | Salvator mundi by Willem Vrelant (†1481) | Nicolas Oresme in front of an armillary sphere with the Earth at the center. Illuminated illustration taken from his Treatise on the Sphere. | Diagram depicting men on Earth from the Imago Mundi by Gossuin de Metz (1246). | Diagram of a lunar eclipse in Treatise on the Sphere by Nicolas Oresme The recent coronation of Charles III presented us with an image that seemed to come straight out of a history book: the new King Charles III holding in his hands the insignia of royal power, including the orb and the cross, i.e. the sphere mounted with a cross that symbolizes the Earth redeemed by the cross of Jesus Christ. This orb has been in use for a very long time. You can find it throughout the Middle Ages, particularly in depictions of Christ holding the orb in his hand or beneath his feet. The orb represents a globe divided into three parts because of the three continents known at the time. One fact stands out right away: people depicted the Earth as a sphere well before the discovery of the Americas. This should raise questions about an extremely widespread myth, namely, that “during the Middle Ages people thought that the Earth was flat.” You hear this said by journalists, intellectuals, public officials like Marlène Schiappa or Claude Allègre, and even in historical films, history books, and textbooks -- including recent ones. In a 2022 episode of “C Jamy” hosted by the celebrity Jamy Gourmaud, the guest speaker asserted: “In the 15th century, at the time of Christopher Columbus, many believed that the Earth was flat. They based this belief on what the Bible says, but Christopher Columbus didn’t believe this for a second.”1 And if we consult the barometer of public opinion today, namely ChatGPT, it tells us: “In the Middle Ages, people generally thought that the Earth was flat....Scientific theories about the shape of the Earth, like those developed by the ancient Greeks, were well-known, but they were often considered controversial or heretical by the Church.”2 Hence we see that the alleged “flat-earthism” of the medieval era is associated with the Catholic Church, which supposedly prescribed this naive idea as Biblically-based dogma in opposition to the wisdom of the pagan Greeks. Except that several decades of studies now have proven unequivocally that that is a myth. 3 Innumerable pieces of evidence Besides the argument from iconography, it would suffice to open any scholarly book by a Catholic clergyman from this extensive period to put an end to the myth of medieval flat-earthism. We know that Christopher Columbus famously based his own audacious enterprise on an unfinished work by Pope Pius II (†1458), Historia rerum ubique gestarum, which the explorer had annotated. In the very first lines of this work, which was intended to be encyclopedic, Pius II asserts that “Almost everyone agrees that the shape of the world [= universe] is spherical [rotundam]4; they likewise agree about this concerning the Earth.” In the same work, the pope addresses the measurements of the earth’s circumference made by Eratosthenes (3rd century B.C.) and Ptolemy (2nd century B.C.). Christopher Columbus had also annotated the Imago mundi, a work by Cardinal Pierre D’Ailly (†1420). In it, the learned cardinal held forth on the radius and volume of the terrestrial sphere, climate zones according to latitude, and even the poles. For example, he states as a logical conclusion that “those who inhabited the Pole would have the sun above their horizon for half of the year and continuous night for the other half”5, which is remarkably accurate. Pierre d’Ailly was inspired by the Treatise on the Sphere by Nicolas Oresme (†1322), Bishop of Lisieux and advisor to Charles V. The title of this work is sufficiently evocative. The same Oresme was inspired by a work with the same title, The Treatise on the Sphere by the English monk Johannes de Sacrobosco († 1256), which was a major pedagogical success and was copied, expanded, and commented on for many centuries. Around the same time, Saint Thomas Aquinas, who was trying to show in the very first pages of the Summa theologica that we can arrive at the same conclusion through different paths, illustrated his point as follows: “Thus, the astronomer and the physicist prove the same conclusion, namely, that the earth is round.”6 It was therefore a commonplace belief accepted by various scholars of the era. At the turn of the second millennium, Gerbert of Aurillac († 1003), who would be elected pope under the name Sylvester II, constructed a terrestrial globe and, like many learned men of that era, produced a commentary on Macrobius7 († 400), who declared the Earth to be spherical. We can also add Saint Bede the Venerable, († 735), who tells us that “the earth is like a globe;” Saint Isidore of Seville († 636), who talks about the “terrestrial globe” in his famous Etymologies; Boethius († 524) who mentions the “rounded mass of the Earth”8; Saint Gregory of Nyssa († 395), who describes an eclipse for us as a projection of the “spherical form”9 of the Earth upon the moon, etc10. Of course, ancient cosmology also posits an immobile Earth at the center of a finite spherical cosmos, but these errors were taken over from the Greeks. Captions, L-R: Depiction of a solar eclipse from the Imago Mundi by Gossuin de Metz (1246) | Diagram of the Earth in the Ymago Mundi by Pierre d'Ailly (15th century). Notice the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, as well as the Arctic and Antarctic circles | Map in T-O form, Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, 12th century, London, British Library, R12FIV, folio 135v. Only one hemisphere is represented. We find here the tripartite delineation of the three continents. | This modern diagram is supposed to depict the "Biblical cosmos." It does not depict the ancient understanding of the cosmos but rather depicts what some (incorrectly) believe about the ancients. | Currency featuring the effigy of Emperor Zeno († 491). The symbol of Victory is shown on the opposite side, holding an orb and a cross in her left hand. The makings of a myth One could assign very little importance to all of this. After all, the Christian can save his soul no matter what shape he attributes to the Earth. Isn’t the essential thing the frightening decline in life expectancy, which is now only 85 years, whereas in the Middle Ages there was hope for eternal life? Certainly—but what interests us here isn’t the shape of the Earth or the science of past eras, but the origin of a modern-day myth and what it tells us about our own age. For a long time, this myth has been used as a ready-made formula for ridiculing in one fell swoop the alleged stupidity of a Christian time period captured by the reductive title of the “Middle Ages.” The charge of “obscurantism,” however, can be turned back on the propagators of this myth, particularly because access to knowledge is incomparably better today than at a time when the printing press did not yet exist. It’s easy to debunk the myth of medieval flat-earthism, whereas it took a considerable amount of work during the Middle Ages to preserve the knowledge of the ancients. In an excellent book published in 2021 entitled La Terre plate, généalogie d’une idée faussse [The Flat Earth: Genealogy of a False Idea]11, two academics trace the origin of this stubborn myth. Is it surprising to find out that the principal author of the myth is none other than Voltaire? Lactantius and Cosmas There are indeed several factors that helped give rise to this myth, in particular the Christian apologist Lactantius († 325), who is the sole outlier in the West in favor of a flat Earth. But nobody followed his opinion, and he was never numbered among the Church Fathers. In the East, we find one Cosmas Indicopleustes († approx. 550), who wrote a Christian Topography as a flat-earther. This illustrious unknown, whose very name is uncertain, seems to have been a Greek-speaking merchant who emerged during the Nestorian schism. The first Latin translation of his Topography dates back to 1707. Is it necessary to point out that he was therefore completely unknown to the medieval West? Yet Voltaire cites Lactantius and Cosmas as representing the position taken by all the Church Fathers: “The Fathers regarded the Earth as a massive ship surrounded by water; the prow was in the East, and the stern was in the West.”12 This is a failure to provide the basic historical context for evaluating the transmission of ideas. By lumping things together in this way, someone could just as easily claim that the third millennium adhered to flat earthism based on certain videos available online—it is treating a marginal thesis as if it were the norm. Even today, it is not uncommon to see Cosmas cited as the authority that he never was. The question of the antipodes In The City of God, Saint Augustine says that we shouldn’t believe those who assert the existence of “antipodeans”13—that is, people living on the opposite side of the Earth—because this theory is based on uncertain conjectures and not on convincing first-hand accounts. Here Saint Augustine simply points out an empirical demand that one could hardly blame him for and that has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. Yet Voltaire used this to conclude that the great Doctor of the Church denied the sphericity of the Earth! Likewise, Voltaire asserts that “Towards the end of the 15th century, Alonso Tostado, the Bishop of Avila, declares in his Commentary on Genesis that the Christian faith is rocked to its foundations if people believe in a round Earth.” Now, if anyone were to open the book in question, they would immediately discover that Voltaire is lying, since this bishop talks about the “spherical earth” and “our hemisphere”14. On the other hand, Tostado thinks, like Saint Augustine, that the antipodes are not inhabited. In his work cited above, Pierre d’Ailly describes the different theses on whether the antipodes are inhabited as “opinions.” In this domain, we’re very far afield of dogma. The exploration by Christopher Columbus gave an answer to this marginal question of the “antipodeans.” Only after the fact did the legend emerge of Christopher Columbus shattering flat earth dogma on the reef of experience, especially in a biography written by Washington Irving that greatly contributed to the myth. Is the Bible flat-earthist? In the trial of flat-earthism, Voltaire calls the defendant Sacred Scripture to the witness stand. He writes with his characteristic ironic venom: “Proper respect for the Bible, which teaches us so many very necessary and very sublime truths, was the cause of this universal error among us. People had found in Psalm 103 that God stretched the heavens over the Earth like a tent.”15 Certainly, if you wanted to extract a confession of flat-earthism from the Bible, you can always pin this preconceived idea to a verse that agrees with it in one way or another16. However, the opposite is equally possible, since the Vulgate regularly designates the Earth with the word “orbis” that we could readily translate as “globe”17. But rather than engage in these fruitless debates, let us recall the well-known Catholic principle that Scripture must be read by the light of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers. Now, Voltaire is not a Father of the Church. Instead, let us give the floor to the remarkable wisdom of Saint Basil of Caesarea (†379) from his Homilies on the Hexaemeron, 9: We find a similar remark by Augustine in Against Felix the Manichean regarding the movement of the stars: Is the Church “round-earthist”? The Church has not asserted the flatness of the Earth any more than its roundness because she asserts nothing on this subject. All of the Church Fathers, theologians, and popes who assert that the Earth is spherical do not base their thinking on the faith, because they consider it silent on this subject. Consistently, they refer to the “philosophers,” the “physicists,” and the “mathematicians.” They give arguments drawn from reason and observation: the shadow of the Earth on the moon during eclipses, the mast of the ship that disappears after the hull, or even the new stars that appear on the horizon during voyages at sea. This is an important point, because the myth tried to insinuate that faith and science were mutually exclusive. The believer supposedly was driven to look for truth in faith alone without leaving anything up to reason. But that is not thinking of the Church. The Fathers of the Church intended solely to reject the idea of the eternity of the world put forward by ancient cosmology. Modern cosmology cannot hold that against them. The inertia of a hoax All of these elements could lead the uninitiated astray, but they cannot impress any remotely serious historian. The first propagandists of the myth were the most culpable. But once the original hoaxes were uncritically accepted, those that followed repeated the Voltairian catechism, prompted by a blind faith in progress, so that with time, the hoax repeated thousands of times took on the character of an established historical truth. Michelet, who deserves the title of a novelist rather than a historian, obviously took up this fable, among many others. It was also perpetuated by Antoine-Jean Letronne, who held the chair of history at the prestigious College of France in the 19th century20. History has shown that even authors like Arthur Koestler have erred in this regard, even though he helped to demystify the Galileo affair21. There is even a book published in 2015 claiming to “shatter the myths” that presents a slightly nuanced version of it22. Initially, this myth was propagated mainly by anti-Catholic circles, but as time went on, it quickly came to deceive Catholics. Additional elements were added later, such as old maps, sometimes presented as evidence of medieval flat-earthism. However, considering flat maps as proof of flat-earthism is an astonishingly foolish argument that would have us classify the creators of Rand McNally maps or the designers of Google Maps as flat-earthers on the grounds that they depict the Earth’s surface as flat. As for cross-sectional representations [“side views”], which could constitute real evidence, they are not derived from medieval manuscripts but are contemporary productions designed to illustrate the myth! The myth thus becomes the creator of its own “evidence.” It perpetuates itself. The origins of modern flat-earthism Ironically, the birth of the real flat-earther phenomenon today can be traced back to the 19th century, shortly after the “Enlightenment,” during the rise of rationalism and deep within a utopian socialist community. Indeed, around 1839, Samuel Rowbotham, secretary of the short-lived utopian community Manea Fen inspired by Owenism23, conducted experiments along the Bedford River from which he concluded that the Earth is flat. He published a pamphlet entitled “Zetetic Astronomy” (1849) to defend his bizarre conclusion by appealing to his “zetetic”24 method based solely on reason. He went on to produce a more substantial work (1881) by adding a few Biblical passages that he interpreted very idiosyncratically, citing neither the Church Fathers, nor Cosmas, nor the Middle Ages, and certainly not the Magisterium, for he was a Protestant who seemed to have had no denominational affiliation. His ideas were later embraced by a Protestant sect called the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church, which obviously has nothing to do with Catholicism despite its name, and after that they were taken up by the famous Flat-Earth Society, which continues to exist to this day. Conclusion It is disconcerting and revealing to observe that an error as crude as this one could still be so widespread. If such a myth was able to burden the scholarly textbooks for two centuries, how many others are still hiding among contemporary ideas about medieval Christianity? There’s the alleged prohibition of dissection25, the absurd story of the debate about the soul of women26, the myth of the lord’s first night, which Voltaire does not hesitate to attribute to the bishops27, etc. Reality ends up being even harder to discern when objective facts have been taken and mixed up with myth, for example the witch hunts, the Inquisition, or the Galileo affair. All of these myths took root even more tenaciously because they reinforced the preconceived ideas of anti-clericals, whether they revolutionaries or Protestants, even though they talk incessantly about the “battle against prejudice.” The principal cause of these myths must be sought in this mentality: They judge the medieval period to be irrational because they look at it irrationally. They project their own irrationality onto the past, the better to reinforce the pride of a present day which is deemed to be “enlightened” by reason; out of a prideful Manichaeism, they say the past is “obscurantist” and that we are finally “enlightened.” But the “enlightenment” of the third millennium is not that bright; don’t we see people in high places seriously entertaining the possibility of putting men in women’s prisons or in women’s sports simply because those men have declared that they feel like women? Don’t we see elected officials plead for the preservation of Paris’s “brown rats”? Truly, our world is going to hell in a handbasket. Could the loss of faith have anything to do with this loss of reason? By forgetting this religious verticality that draws man towards God, the Earth today has lost one of its dimensions; it has become spiritually flat. La Porte Latine - sspx.org - 07/11/2023 https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/flat-earth-hidden-side-hoax-84054 The conclusion MUST be read AND generally accepted for THEE “flat” Earther!!!

The excerpt: There is a common notion that medieval society thought of the earth as being flat. This is erroneous. Numerous academics during the Middle Ages were quite familiar with the learning traditions of the Ancients and especially their legacy concerning geometry and mathematics and the application of these to cosmology (the study of the cosmos, for example, the heavens) and to the structure of the earth. Most Christian thinkers accepted the wisdom which long dismissed any notion of a flat earth. But why did such a view of Medieval ignorance prevail? This can be traced directly to an 1828 work by American author and biographer, Washington Irving (1783-1859), The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Irving is the originator of this precise myth. And since his publications circulated widely during his day, his "myth" was eagerly welcomed by a public which was thoroughly disposed to degrade the Medieval period as the Dark Ages. Their bias, reinforced by Irving, was that the "darkness" of an autocratic Catholic Church opposed reason and oppressed scientific inquiry. History, however, demonstrated otherwise. But respect for historical reliability was omitted. The article: The Catholic Church and Galileo Author: Father Bernard O'Connor The Catholic Church and Galileo Father Bernard O'Connor Official at the Congregation for Eastern Churches The Catholic Church and the Galileo controversy: acclaimed scientist attests to a distortion of history Church pressured to retreat into silence On two recent occasions Pope Benedict XVI has recognized Galileo's role in the advance of science. In his Epiphany Homily he recalled that exploration of the stars, indeed of science per se, should not lead to confusion between creation and the Creator. Galileo, understanding that the universe is truly governed by love, did not make such a mistake. Scripture tells us that the magi followed a star to where they found Jesus and adored him as humanity's King. For them, the star, a marvel of nature, was not an end in itself. The Pope's Angelus Message on 21 December 2008 also included a greeting to participants in events to commemorate the International Year of Astronomy (2009), that coincide with the fourth centenary of Galileo's first observations by telescope. The Pontiff commented that "Among my Predecessors... there were some who studied this science". And together with all those versed in the empirical sciences we become increasingly aware how "the laws of nature" are "a great incentive to contemplate the works of the Lord with gratitude" (L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 24/31 December 2008, p. 1). Notwithstanding the widespread belief that there is an ongoing "clash" between faith and science the Holy Father continues to speak of a positive relationship between them. Dr David C. Lindberg, Hilldale Professor emeritus of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin, U.S.A., and a foremost authority on the Galileo dispute, takes an interesting approach to the matter. Dr Lindberg describes himself as a "liberal Protestant" who is convinced that society has inherited a deliberately flawed version of facts related to Galileo. The Catholic Church, he maintains, has to a great extent been wrongly vilified. Regrettably, there are few who attempt to properly analyze the historical data. This author questioned Dr Lindberg on his point of view. 1. Does the issue of the Galileo controversy concern you personally? The issue does touch me on a very personal level because as a research scholar and teacher I am obligated to identify and promote the accuracy of the historical record. Acting to correct misconception is a crucial dimension of my educator's role. I think, for example, of the famed Roger Bacon (c. 1214– 92), the English Franciscan friar who is generally considered to be the founder of modern experimental science. He recognized that while mythology has a value for the pursuit of classical history and culture, some mythologies which are presumed to be factually true have filtered into popular consciousness. But they are not true in that sense and this must be emphasized. There is a duty incumbent upon the scholar of science to expose why certain myths have been so readily embraced on the popular level. Permit me to illustrate. There is a common notion that medieval society thought of the earth as being flat. This is erroneous. Numerous academics during the Middle Ages were quite familiar with the learning traditions of the Ancients and especially their legacy concerning geometry and mathematics and the application of these to cosmology (the study of the cosmos, for example, the heavens) and to the structure of the earth. Most Christian thinkers accepted the wisdom which long dismissed any notion of a flat earth. But why did such a view of Medieval ignorance prevail? This can be traced directly to an 1828 work by American author and biographer, Washington Irving (1783-1859), The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Irving is the originator of this precise myth. And since his publications circulated widely during his day, his "myth" was eagerly welcomed by a public which was thoroughly disposed to degrade the Medieval period as the Dark Ages. Their bias, reinforced by Irving, was that the "darkness" of an autocratic Catholic Church opposed reason and oppressed scientific inquiry. History, however, demonstrated otherwise. But respect for historical reliability was omitted. And we see a similar situation in terms of Galileo. Generations of commentators have been content to declare that the Church pitted itself against Galileo because the Church was threatened by science and thus became the inevitable enemy of almost every advance in science and technology. The myth abides. I invite you to read my essay, "Galileo, the Church, and the Cosmos", to evaluate the complexity of what pertained to Galileo and the Church's approach to him. I propose to challenge the usual version of what happened and of what did characterize the Church's attitude (see Chapter 2 of, When Science and Christianity Meet, coedited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, University of Chicago Press, 2003). 2. The essay to which you refer mentions the negative influence of Andrew Dickson White on the customary interpretation of the Galileo controversy. Who is White? White (1832-1918) was Professor of History at the University of Michigan and subsequently became the first President of Cornell University (New York). In 1896, he published, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom". As expressed by the title, the Church, particularly during the Medieval epoch was judged severely. White's discussion of Galileo portrayed him as the culminating point of those prior centuries when the Church dominated, manipulated, and betrayed Western intellectual thought. White's claim was that the Church's anti-scientific stance accelerated during the 18th and 19th centuries, though rebuked by such Enlightenment philosophers as Voltaire. White's work was reprinted extensively and his position was adopted uncritically in academic and media circles. But his underlying agenda seems to have consisted of an obsession to denounce religion's engagement in higher education, notably wherever science was involved. 3. Is this distortion of the historical data with regards to Galileo pervasive? Definitely. I am familiar with instances when normally moderate and objective producers of educational video resources react with sheer disdain towards any scholar who is inclined to refute the image of the Church as the bully of Galileo and those like-minded. Few have the courage to resist the Catholic bashing which is considered justifiable when the name of Galileo surfaces. It is also interesting to observe that other Christian denominations and religious traditions are "assaulted" to a far less degree. 4. Is tolerance in contemporary colleges and universities itself a myth? Not infrequently. Some on our campuses assert that tolerance is now defined as a willingness to conform to the pressure of having to endorse whatever prejudice is most recent and rampant. To differ can lead to loss of promotion, distrust from publishers, and the "cold shoulder" from prestigious conferences and organizations; in short, to career death. 5. Are there lessons which the Galileo scenario still imparts to us? There are many lessons. I am struck by two. First, people must learn to read critically and not to automatically "buy into" any printed word which happens to fit those preconceived ideas which they hope to confirm. And second, being a teacher and being a student both entail responsibility. Be cautious when a classroom starts to function as a medium to disseminate what amounts to subjective emotionalism and unsubstantiated tenets, disguised as academic-sounding rhetoric. Being impressionable is not a sign of intellectual maturity. Nor is susceptibility an index to measure educational progress. 6. Your essay, "The Beginnings of Western Science", suggests that political and ideological undercurrents habitually lurk beneath the externals of scientific controversy. Can this be said of Galileo? Without the slightest doubt. Honesty requires us to admit that the Protestant Reformers and their heirs found in their rendition of the Galileo scenario a great opportunity to undermine the Catholic Church's credibility and authority. For example, there is ample evidence in the British scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries that Catholicism deserved to be marginalized and to become ultimately extinct. The so-called anti-Catholic laws furthered exactly this intent, and the Galileo saga was enlisted to sanction it. Americans of the time were prone to concur. Today, secular scholars realize that Galileo can again be conveniently incorporated into what is often their anti-Church and anti-religion platform. Society at large, perhaps persuaded by the media regarding Church inconsistencies and moral lapses, seldom tends to object. 7. Dr Lindberg, you give the impression that many scientists uphold science to be the sole norm for determining how society must think and act. Please comment. Once more considering the Galileo case, if one insists that the Church has no right to address scientific questions then there is absolutely no incentive to re-evaluate where doubt arises concerning the authenticity of documentation relating to Galileo or how his trial and the recantation which he signed should be assessed according to the unique historical milieu and circumstances. Some maintain that such a step would represent no more than the revival of a memory of a last-ditch stance by the Church to exert its power of influence. This was a struggle in which the Church was defeated by the pro-science constituency, convinced that, after Galileo, the Church can do no more than to retreat into the silence of its delusion and fantasy. Hence, the Church has no choice but to concede the forum of public allegiance to science and its advocates. Such is somewhat of a synthesis of the perspective which we typically encounter. But it is both weak and deficient. For it would deny the contribution of countless scientists, living and deceased, whose commitment to their Church and faith has been profoundly rational (e.g. the Augustinian Abbot, Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics, Fr George Lemaitre who proposed the Big Bang theory, Blessed Francesco Fa di Bruno, etc.). The defense of truth must never succumb to becoming a caricature of truth. Such would be at least as unfortunate as accusations levelled against the Church which are culled from superficial deductions extracted from a fiction that the Church persecuted Galileo relentlessly. Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 4 February 2009, page 15 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catholic-church-and-galileo-2643

Worth the review, again, on “flat” Earth misrepresentations of Bible Verses. Well worth the watch ESPECIALLY for CHRONIC “flat” Earth “advocates”!!!

Ex “flat” Earthers come clean……. Will YOU “flat” Earther???!!!

Who invented the idea of a flat Earth? Contrary to what most people think, the Earth was known to be spherical in ancient times. The ancient Greeks even calculated its circumference with surprising accuracy. Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn't teach it. Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded. In his book The Discoverers, author Daniel Boorstin stated: Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the “official Christian viewpoint.” Lactantius The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life. He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived). Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view as typical of that of the Church Fathers. US Library of Congress head, Daniel Boorstin (quoted above), like historians before him, simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as “round” or spherical. Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was “apt to indulge in the imagination.” Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented—it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Later Writers Repeated the Error In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as “reputable” ever since. In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life. Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the “affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves” these were the “Dark Ages.” Draper's work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science(1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller. Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896. Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the “four corners of the Earth” are still used today.) Encyclopedias Erase the Myth While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopedias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopaedia(1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989). There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth. Author: Adapted by Ian Taylor for Creation Science Association of Ontario, Feature No. 30, from the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians (ISBN 027595904X), by history professor Jeffrey Burton Russell. Summarized by Paula Weston, ne McKerlie. Supplied by Answers in Genesis and published in Creation Ex Nihilo magazine, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 4849. Flat-Earth HeyDay Came with Darwin Charles Darwin, the most famous promoter of evolutionism. The idea that the Earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says. Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth(written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the Earth spherical.” Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the Earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round Earth against misinformed clerics and university professors. But Russell says the flat Earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-Earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science. The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the Earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above “the circle of the Earth” (the Hebrew word for “circle” can also mean a “sphere”). Also, Luke 17:34-36depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating Earth with day and night at the same time. Footnote Boorstin acknowledges in his book that by the time of Columbus, most educated Europeans believed in a spherical Earth. https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

Time to follow suit AND apologize to ALL the Science Teachers for INSULTING THEM WITH “flat” Earth “indulgences” !!! Kyrie Irving on flat-Earth comments: 'I'm sorry' NBA.com Staff October 1, 2018 8:10 PM BOSTON (AP) — Kyrie Irving offered a simple message to science teachers Monday. “I’m sorry,” the Boston Celtics star said. And with that, Irving made clear that he regrets publicly saying that the Earth is flat. Speaking Monday at the Forbes Under 30 summit in Boston, the flat-Earth topic that Irving inserted himself into last year was discussed — and the All-Star guard said he didn’t realize the effect that his claim would have once it went public. “To all the science teachers, everybody coming up to me like, `You know I’ve got to reteach my whole curriculum?’ I’m sorry,” Irving said, as the room attending his session laughed. “I apologize. I apologize.” Irving said he’s since learned certain thoughts are best kept in “intimate conversations.” This whole saga started in February 2017, when Irving questioned whether the Earth is flat on a podcast that came out shortly before All-Star weekend that year in New Orleans. It became a major story and even NBA Commissioner Adam Silver — who, like Irving, went to Duke — was asked to offer his opinion. “Kyrie and I went to the same college,” Silver said then. “He may have taken some different courses.” Irving indicated in the days and months that followed the podcast that he initially made the remarks to promote conversation and prove a point how stories in this social-media age can spread rapidly. But then he told The New York Times in early June of this year that he was not completely sure whether the Earth was flat or round. “I do research on both sides,” Irving said at the time. “I’m not against anyone that thinks the Earth is round. I’m not against anyone that thinks it’s flat. I just love hearing the debate.” He said Monday he’d like to have the matter put to rest, and noted that this escapade was a good lesson of how words that come from influential people can have enormous power. “At the time, I was like huge into conspiracies,” Irving said. “And everybody’s been there.” Other NBA superstars, including Irving’s “Uncle Drew” movie co-star Shaquille O’Neal, entered the flat-Earth fray in recent months. O’Neal once echoed Irving’s stance, that the Earth is flat. “But I was playing,” O’Neal told the AP earlier this year. https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-comments

So, OK, YOU hereby conclusively admit there is NO “flat” Earth AND the Earth IS Spherical (geoidal) in shape BECAUSE YOU refuse to debate the REAL issues demonstrating there is NO “flat” Earth. Besides, the MORE a “flat” Earth “advocate” seeks to DISPROVE a Spherical (geoidal) Earth, the MORE the “flat” Earth “advocate” DISPROVES a “flat” Earth. Go ahead and continue the debate with yourself since I invited you to debate the three items I presented. And you refused the debate!

I did not insult YOUR mother or YOU for that matter. Read again your noted post again for ANY references to YOUR mother or YOU for that matter. There is NO debate on a matter verifiable by simple and universal observations. ALL the “proofs” for a “flat” Earth have NO basis in REALITY. So, WHY, pray tell, debate the NONSENSE of “flat” Earth? Peppering individuals with “flat” Earth NONSENSE is not a debate. IF YOU want to debate, THEN debate THIS: YOUR silence on debating OR refusal to debate THESE THREE points SHOWS YOU KNOW “flat” Earth is a LIE. YOUR TURN in the debate on THESE THREE POINTS. Subjecting anyone to false accusations such as being Luciferian for knowing, believing, and advocating a REAL Spherical (geoidal) Earth IS harassment.

So, OK, I thought you put me on ignore. Most people can accept the following.............. It is unfortunate with all the personally verifiable proof the Earth isn't "flat" that "flat" Earth "proponents" attempt to advance a personally held believe that has no merit. Simple observations are the best and absolutely viable unless proven incorrect by other simple observations. Here are simple personally verifiable and rational reasons "flat" Earth isn't viable: The Sun (and Moon) rises and sets South of the Artic Circle and North of the Antartic Circle. The Sun (and Moon) appears from the top down at Sunrise and disappears from the bottom up at Sunset. This simple observation excludes the "flat" Earth Sun (and Moon) never rising or setting but hovering above the Earth where the Sun (and Moon) appear from the bottom up and disappear from the top down. Alternately, the Sun (and Moon) are not visible at all times as would be in a "flat" Earth "environment". North of the Arctic Circle on nominally June 21 and South of the Antarctic Circle the Sun on nominally December 21 the Sun does hover in the sky but ONLY on the days leading up to and past those dates. Meteorites and Meteors enter the Earth's atmosphere from different directions and trajectories although a series of meteorites can and do enter the Earth's atmosphere from the same direction and trajectory. The "flat" Earth model has the stars falling off the dome and would have the same trajectory and direction. This shows there can not be a "flat" Earth dome where rockets can not penetrate the dome since meteorites and meteors enter the Spherical (geoidal) Earth's atmosphere proving there is no "flat" Earth dome. Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere and the projection from the Southern Cross in the Southern Hemisphere are two different and fixed locations in the respective night skies the star field rotates. This isn't possible in a "flat" Earth model. The "flat" Earth rotating dome above the "ice" "wall" would be a easy proof for "flat" Earth "proponents" to provide proof of a "flat" Earth since a "flat" Earth boat could get close enough to the "ice" "wall" to video the phenomena but, of course, the video doesn't exist. Others can other personally verifiable proofs "flat" Earth is inviable. Yet the "flat" Earth "proponents" choose to harass, insult, and physically threaten (yeah, right) posters of TRUTHFUL Spherical (geoidal) Earth information and hide behind quotes from God The Son Jesus Christ in an attempt to promote their LIE of a "flat" Earth all in the "spirit" of tolerance and unity. The "spirit" of tolerance and unity that destroys if left unaddressed or even embraced. So, is it any wonder "flat" Earth "proponents" MUST be shown for the charlatans they ALL are perveying misinformation / disinformation / false information and outright LIES before they show up outside and inside schools and churches? Honestly, that is what is happening and only causes unnecessary problems so is why "flat" Earth MUST be addressed when ever and where ever it appears to do what is necessary to contain and stamp out the cancerous "flat" Earth LIE. Here is a footstool verse from the New English Translation: Psalm 110:1 New English Translation Psalm 110[a] A psalm of David. 110 Here is the Lord’s proclamation[b] to my lord:[c] “Sit down at my right hand[d] until I make your enemies your footstool.”[e] Read full chapter Footnotes Psalm 110:1 sn Psalm 110. In this royal psalm the psalmist announces God’s oracle to the Davidic king. The first part of the oracle appears in v. 1, the second in v. 4. In vv. 2-3 the psalmist addresses the king, while in vv. 5-7 he appears to address God. Psalm 110:1 tn The word נְאֻם (neʾum) is used frequently in the OT of a formal divine announcement through a prophet. Psalm 110:1 sn My lord. In the psalm’s original context the speaker is an unidentified prophetic voice in the royal court, likely addressing David, the head of the dynasty. In the course of time the psalm is applied to each successive king in the dynasty, and is likely understood as such by David (see 2 Sam 7:11-14, 19). Since the Psalm as a whole is attributed to David, it is appropriate to speak of any of its parts as coming from him, whether he composed them, reported them, or commissioned them. Ultimately these words come to apply to the ideal Davidic king, specifically Jesus Christ, the Son of David. Thus, in the irony of the incarnation, the lord who receives the promise is the Lord who made the promise. This creates some complexity in typographic convention, as NET chooses to use lower case here in the Psalm (“my lord”) due to its original context, even though we now know it to be ultimately fulfilled by our Lord. The Greek translation introduces more difficulty because it uses κύριος (kurios, “lord”) for both the Lord’s name, יהוה (YHWH, probably pronounced “Yahweh”) and the title אֲדוֹנַי (ʾadonay, “Lord”) (the word here is not the title, but simply “lord” [אָדוֺן, ʾadon] with the suffix “my”). This complexity and irony are the grounds for the riddle posed by Jesus in the gospels (Matt 22:43-45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44), which the Pharisees could not solve because they were not expecting the Davidic lord to be the Lord. Peter incorporates the answer “that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” into his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:34-35). Psalm 110:1 sn To sit at the “right hand” of the king was an honor (see 1 Kgs 2:19). The Lord’s invitation to the Davidic king to sit down at his right hand reflects the king’s position as the Lord’s vice-regent. In Ugaritic myth (CTA 4 v. 108-10) the artisan god Kothar-wa-Khasis is described as sitting at the right hand of the storm god Baal. See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 61-62. Psalm 110:1 sn When the Lord made his covenant with David, he promised to subdue the king’s enemies (see 2 Sam 7:9-11; Ps 89:22-23). So, "footstool" is a notation for being brought into submission not a physical footstool. The issue of "flat" Earth is a Salvation issue. "flat" Earth proponents are driving nonbelievers away from the Gospel Of Salvation in God The Son Jesus Christ because nonbelievers incorrectly associate Christians and The Bible with "flat" Earth when the Bible NEVER mentions or indicates the Earth is "flat". Nonbelievers would rightly ask, "What else in The Bible is a LIE besides the "flat" Earth LIE" if people professing to be Born Again Believers in God The Son Jesus Christ state they believe the Earth is "flat" and they state The Bible states the Earth is "flat"? Do you want this on your conscience that you drive nonbelievers away from the Gospel Of Salvation in God The Son Jesus Christ because you incorrectly promote The Bible states the Earth is "flat"? The simple proofs alone I mentioned are proof enough the Earth is NOT "flat" AND is Spherical (geoidal) in shape. I wouldn't try burning people at the stake or harming them in any way. It wouldn't go well for the perpetrators no matter whatever false authority they claim.

Charles Barkley called out Shaq for all this flat earth insanity NBABy Matt Yoder on 03/21/2017 I can’t believe I’m typing these words in 2017 and not 1017, but Flat Earth hypotheses have been all the rage in sports recently. Kyrie Irving came out and started it all by questioning the spherical nature of our planet. I still can’t figure out if he’s trolling or not, but regardless it’s led to others coming out of the shadows in support of this. In spite of literally every piece of scientific evidence, observation, and physics that has been in the public view for the past 2500 years Flat Earthers have hit the mainstream. Shaquille O’Neal recently came out on his podcast in support of Flat Earthers. He reasoned that because he drove on flat roads, the earth must be flat. Forget anyone who’s actually circumnavigated the globe or why anyone would fly over the north pole to cross the ocean. It’s a logical masterpiece, I tell you. Shaq’s TNT colleague Charles Barkley went on Rich Eisen’s show this week and was asked about the backwards views spreading through the NBA. And Barkley told another classic story about Shaq’s lack of astronomical knowledge. Apparently it’s easier to get to the moon from Atlanta than it is to get to Los Angeles. Well, traffic in Atlanta and LA is pretty bad so maybe he does have a point there. Here’s audio of Shaq’s comments about the earth being flat in case you realllllllllyyyy want to be enlight We now live in a world of Fake News, Conspiracy Theories, and Flat Earthers. Please someone combine all of these things into one and try to convince someone famous that there’s a place called Rand McNally where people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. https://awfulannouncing.com/nba/charles-barkley-called-shaq-flat-earth-insanity.html

Amir has a SPECIAL MESSAGE for EVERYBODY starting at about 38:00!!! Enjoy!

For the DNA editing, I am evaluating as noted here. It is difficult to positively identify the effects the consuming of the Fruit Of The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil on the body - to include the DNA. The reason Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden Of Eden was to not partake of the Tree Of Life and so live forever. Genesis 3:22-24 New English Translation 22 And the Lord God said, “Now[a] that the man has become like one of us,[b] knowing[c] good and evil, he must not be allowed[d] to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him[e] from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove[f] the man out, he placed on the eastern side[g] of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries[h] who used the flame of a whirling sword[i] to guard the way to the tree of life. Footnotes Genesis 3:22 tn The particle הֵן (hen) introduces a foundational clause, usually beginning with “since, because, now.” Genesis 3:22 sn The man has become like one of us. See the notes on Gen 1:26 and 3:5. Genesis 3:22 tn The infinitive explains in what way the man had become like God: “knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:22 tn Heb “and now, lest he stretch forth.” Following the foundational clause, this clause forms the main point. It is introduced with the particle פֶּן (pen) which normally introduces a negative purpose, “lest….” The construction is elliptical; something must be done lest the man stretch forth his hand. The translation interprets the point intended. Genesis 3:23 tn The verb is the Piel preterite of שָׁלַח (shalakh), forming a wordplay with the use of the same verb (in the Qal stem) in v. 22: To prevent the man’s “sending out” his hand, the Lord “sends him out.” Genesis 3:24 tn The verb with the vav (ו) consecutive is made subordinate to the next verb forming a temporal clause. This avoids any tautology with the previous verse that already stated that the Lord expelled the man. Genesis 3:24 tn Or “placed in front.” Directions in ancient Israel were given in relation to the east rather than the north. Genesis 3:24 tn The Hebrew word is traditionally transliterated “the cherubim.”sn Angelic sentries (Heb “cherubim”). The cherubim in the Bible seem to be a class of angels that are composite in appearance. Their main task seems to be guarding. Here they guard the way to the tree of life. The curtain in the tabernacle was to be embroidered with cherubim as well, symbolically guarding the way to God. (See in addition A. S. Kapelrud, “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise,” JAOS 70 [1950]: 151-56; and D. N. Freedman and M. P. O’Connor, TDOT 7:307-19.) Genesis 3:24 tn Heb “the flame of the sword that turns round and round.” The noun “flame” is qualified by the genitive of specification, “the sword,” which in turn is modified by the attributive participle “whirling.” The Hitpael of the verb “turn” has an iterative function here, indicating repeated action. The form is used in Job 37:12 of swirling clouds and in Judg 7:13of a tumbling roll of bread. Verse 24 depicts the sword as moving from side to side to prevent anyone from passing or as whirling around, ready to cut to shreds anyone who tries to pass. Editing the human genome raises ethical questions for me whether pre or at conception on through the natural life of a human being. My opinion is life begins at conception and the soul is also infused at conception. The genetic material is direct unedited material from the father and mother. To me, the genome is to be unaltered. Further in my opinion, transhumanist practices in like regard are potentially classed as Crimes Against Humanity. For the quoted section: Romans 4:4-5 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament 4 Nowde to theho one who worksergazomai, hisho wagesmisthos are notou creditedlogizomai askata a giftcharis, butalla askata an obligationopheilēma. 5 Butde to thehoone who does notmē workergazomai, butde entrustspisteuō himself toepi theho one who justifiesdikaioō theho ungodlyasebēs, hisautos faithpistis is creditedlogizomai ·hoaseis righteousnessdikaiosynē. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+4%3A4-5&version=MOUNCE The link goes to the English/Greek where the Greek words are linked to Strong's Concordance. No works there, only trust. Romans 9:15-17 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament 15 Forgar he sayslegō toho MosesMōysēs, “I will have mercyeleeō on whomhos I have mercyeleeō, andkai I will have compassionoiktirō on whomhos I have compassionoiktirō.” 16 Soara thenoun, it does notou depend onho humanthelō desire oroude ·ho exertiontrechō, butalla onho God’stheos mercyeleaō. 17 Forgar thehoscripturegraphē sayslegō toho PharaohPharaō, “Foreis this veryautos purposehoutos I have raisedexegeirō yousy up, thathopōs I might displayendeiknymi myegō powerdynamis inen yousy, ·ho andkai thathopōs myegō nameonoma might be proclaimeddiangellō ·ho inen allpas theho earthgē.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9%3A15-17&version=MOUNCE Our works or dedication is an outcome of the work already performed by God The Son Jesus Christ. God The Son Jesus Christ is the Living Word. John 1:1 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament 1 Inen the beginningarchē waseimi theho Wordlogos, andkai theho Wordlogos waseimi withpros ·ho Godtheos, andkai theho Wordlogos waseimi Godtheos. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1&version=MOUNCE John 1:14 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament 14 Andkai theho Wordlogos becameginomai fleshsarx andkai dweltskēnoō amongen ushēmeis, andkai we gazedtheaomai on ·ho hisautos glorydoxa, glorydoxa ashōs of theonlymonogenēs Son frompara the Fatherpatēr, fullplērēs of gracecharis andkai truthalētheia. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A14&version=MOUNCE 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament 3 Forgar I passed onparadidōmi to youhymeis asen of firstprōtos importance whathos I alsokai receivedparalambanō: thathoti ChristChristos diedapothnēskōforhyper ·ho ourhēmeis sinshamartia accordingkata to theho Scripturesgraphē, 4 andkai thathoti he was buriedthaptō, andkai thathoti he has been raisedegeirō ontheho thirdtritos dayhēmera ·ho accordingkata to theho Scripturesgraphē, 5 andkai thathoti he appearedhoraō to CephasKēphas, theneita to theho twelvedōdeka. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A3-5&version=MOUNCE The Deity Of God The Son Jesus Christ is from eternity past through now through eternity in the future. Philippians 2:4-11 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament 4 Each personhekastos should look outskopeō notmē only for his ownheautou interestsho, butalla alsokai for theho interests of othersheteros. 5 Yourhymeis attitudephroneō toward one another should be the samehoutos askai thathos ofen ChristChristos JesusIēsous, 6 whohos, although he washyparchō inen the formmorphē of Godtheos, didhēgeomai notou regardhēgeomai equalityisos with Godtheos a thing to beeimi graspedharpagmos, 7 butalla emptiedkenoō himselfheautou, taking onlambanō the formmorphē of a servant, being bornginomai inen the likenesshomoiōma of mananthrōpos. Andkai being foundheuriskō in appearanceschēma ashōs a mananthrōpos 8 he humbledtapeinoō himselfheautou, becomingginomai obedienthypēkoos to the pointmechri of deaththanatos, evende deaththanatos ona crossstauros! 9 Thereforedio ·kai ·ho Godtheos has highly exaltedhyperypsoō himautos andkai bestowedcharizomai on himautos theho nameonoma thatho is abovehyper everypas nameonoma, 10 so thathina aten theho nameonoma of JesusIēsous everypas kneegony should bowkamptō, in heavenepouranios, andkai on earthepigeios andkai under the earthkatachthonios, 11 andkai everypas tongueglōssa confessexomologeomai thathoti JesusIēsous ChristChristos is Lordkyrios, toeis the glorydoxa of Godtheos the Fatherpatēr. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A4-11&version=MOUNCE

Proofs of Spherical Earth Presented by Flat-Earthers Many adherents of flat Earth have spent a lot of effort and money to perform various observations and experiments. They would buy expensive equipment, travel to the other side of the world, painstakingly designed the experiments in minute details, and performed large-scale experiments; all to prove the notion that Earth is flat. However, many of these experiments and observations have actually confirmed the Earth is a sphere beyond any doubt. In most cases, they would not accept such conclusions, and instead, they misinterpret, refuse to accept, lie, and withhold information. Such behaviors are the results of confirmation bias. However, their results speak louder than their biased conclusions, and these are perfectly valid proofs that Earth is a sphere. These are some of those observations and experiments, where flat-Earthers have painstakingly and extravagantly performed them, only to come up with the wrong conclusions and spectacularly demonstrating their confirmation biases to the entire world. Rob Skiba’s High-Altitude Balloons Rob Skiba launched several high-altitude balloons to record the curvature of the Earth, or the lack of it as he hoped. He used a customized GoPro camera to eliminate the inherent barrel distortions in stock GoPros and record a flat horizon instead of a distorted one. His results show the curvature. But he refused to accept it, and his conclusion said it is flat, without spending any effort to measure it as others did. Jeranism’s ISS Sighting Jeran Campanella of Jeranism has recorded the lunar transit of the ISS. With a respectable result, too. The ISS transit only happens for less than 2 seconds at a time. Recording the transit of the ISS requires planning in advance and meticulous preparation. It also involves calculation involving the orbital parameters of the ISS, and thus requires the understanding of the correct figure of the Earth, which is a sphere. Jeran obviously did not do the calculations himself, but if the math can reliably predict the exact time and location of an ISS transit, down to the exact second, then the Earth must be a sphere. Jeran did not accept such an obvious conclusion. But instead, he used the various old excuses to dismiss the existence of the ISS, again. Indonesian FE101 Eratosthenes Experiments FE101, a community of flat Earth victims in Indonesia, performed a nationwide large-scale Eratosthenes experiment. Their goal is to measure the distance to the Sun, as well as to determine which one of the flat & sphere model more correctly represent the actual shape of the Earth. They apparently cannot get a consistent figure for the distance to the Sun. On the other hand, the globe model always yielded the consistent Earth’s circumference, proving the sphere model more accurately describe the Earth. They refused to accept such reality. Half of their leaders spent a week to manipulate the results by hiding “bad” data. The rest of them tried to find solace with an unscrupulous flat-Earther who calls himself Dr.Zack. Dr.Zack then provided them with just another made-up “explanation” why such result can happen with a flat Earth. Bob Knodel’s $20000 Ring Laser Gyroscope Proved Earth’s Rotation The Documentary “Behind the Curve” revealed that the flat-Earth personality Bob Knodel of the Globebusters fame had acquired a $20000 ring laser gyroscope to prove Earth is motionless beyond any doubt, once and for all. The gyroscope had other ideas. It recorded a 15°/hour motion which is consistent with the rate of Earth’s rotation. Unwilling to disclose the obvious conclusion, Knodel tried to withhold the result until he can produce the “correct result” with the gyroscope. So far he can’t (and won’t) get the result he wanted. https://flatearth.ws/flat-earth-proofs#more-2306

Here is an informative Biblical Perspective on how and why "flat" Earth is errant. I heard Ray Comfort preach the Gospel Of Salvation Through God The Son Jesus Christ over thirty years ago. He has some very revealing and worth while messages starting at 31:55....... Enjoy!

More thoughts with some of the following incorporated in the earlier video..........

RAF Pilot captures the curvature of the Earth at 70,000 feet!!!