There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible.
Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.
In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of:
- The sect's history
- Their theology
- Tips on how to share the True Faith with them
Christian Science
In contradistinction to the name of this sect, "Christian Science" is neither Christian nor scientific. The founder and leader of the "church," Mary Baker Eddy, taught that disease (and death itself) was unreal because the human body and the entire material world were mere illusions of the deceived who were outside Christian Science (hereinafter "CS"). Those who awoke and knew the "Truth" could be instantaneously healed and never have to die. At this point you might be thinking, "Wait a minute. I've been to many funerals, and I unfortunately know many people who have died. Most died from some sickness. How can sickness and death be illusory?"
Mary Baker Eddy, in her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (considered superior to the Bible by CS) gives the answer:
"If you or I should appear to die, we should not be dead. The seeming decease, caused by a majority of human beliefs that man must die, or produced by mental assassins, does not in the least disprove Christian Science; rather does it evidence the truth of its basic proposition that mortal thoughts in belief rule the materiality miscalled life in the body or in matter. But the forever fact remains paramount that Life, Truth, and Love save from sin, disease, and death." (pg. 164). That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
While sickness and death are inevitable facts we would like to avoid, only a fool would deny their reality. As Christians we follow in the footsteps of a Suffering Savior, who died the real and ignominious death of the cross. The initial appeal of CS was the reports of "miraculous healing," and the possibility of "escaping death" itself. I write "initial appeal" because, ironically, CS is in a major decline and may ultimately "die" as a sect. Nevertheless, there remain over 1,000 CS churches and "reading rooms" actively trying to make converts and "heal" the bleeding membership of the sect. This makes understanding their false beliefs, and how to proselytize them, all the more important.
Mary Baker Eddy: The False "Physician" of a False "Christianity"
Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy (b. Mary Ann Morse Baker), who came into the world on July 16, 1821 in Bow, New Hampshire. She was raised a strict member of the Congregationalist Protestant sect by her parents, Mark and Abigail Baker. As a young child, Eddy endured much physical and emotional illness, including a nervous condition that left her a semi-invalid for years. She also endured seizures and emotional outbursts. She has been considered by some as mentally unstable due to many of her strange behaviors and ideas.
She despised the Congregationalists who taught heretical predestination (i.e., the teaching that God positively Wills--in an arbitrary and capricious manner--some people to go to Heaven, and some to Hell). Eddy was married three times: in 1843 to George W Glover, who died seven months after the wedding from yellow fever; in 1853 to Dr. Daniel Patterson, a dentist who abandoned her, and she obtained a divorce on those grounds; in 1877 to Asa G. Eddy, a sewing machine salesman, who died five years later from a heart attack. Eddy declared her last husband's death was not from a coronary, but from "arsenic poison" that had been "mentally administered" by her enemies. Since CS denies the reality of death, her husband was "made to think he was dead" by a "mental assassin."
As a result of spinal weakness, Eddy committed herself to the care of Phineas Parkhurst Quimby in October 1862. Quimby was a "mental healer" who believed that illness and disease could be cured through positive thoughts and healthy attitudes. She believed herself to have been healed by him on November 7, 1862. The beginning of Christian Science, however, did not occur until February 1866, when Mrs. Eddy claimed to have had a near fatal fall on an icy pavement. She said she was instantly healed when "the healing Truth dawned upon my senses." Dr. Alvin Cushing, the doctor who treated Eddy for her fall, claimed that the fall was not "near fatal" or critical, as Eddy maintained. He denied any knowledge of a "miraculous" or "instantaneous" healing. (See Georgine Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science, [1909]).
In 1875, Eddy published Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, much of which was taken from Quimby's works, and passed off as a "new revelation." On August 23, 1879, Eddy founded "The Church of Christ, Scientist" (informally called CS) "to commemorate the word and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing." (See CS Church Manual, pg. 17). Her sect, with its book and message that sickness and death don't exist, began with approximately fifty people and grew to about one million worldwide when she died in 1910.
Use of medical professionals is discouraged (at best) and they are to be shunned (at worst). Hence, "Christian Science teaches, however, that while both medicine and Christian Science seek the healing of the patient, they rest on very different bases and are therefore incompatible with each other in practical situations. It makes little sense, [Christian] Scientists believe, to administer medical treatment to a patient while at the same time denying the ultimate reality of matter and the reality of material cause and effect, which is the basis of medical treatment."
If death isn't real, then we just imagine our loved ones are dead? Where are they that we can't see them? Did the "evil illusion" take them to a better place (in which case the illusion isn't really bad), or did they cease to exist, which CS teaches is impossible?
She despised the Congregationalists who taught heretical predestination (i.e., the teaching that God positively Wills--in an arbitrary and capricious manner--some people to go to Heaven, and some to Hell). Eddy was married three times: in 1843 to George W Glover, who died seven months after the wedding from yellow fever; in 1853 to Dr. Daniel Patterson, a dentist who abandoned her, and she obtained a divorce on those grounds; in 1877 to Asa G. Eddy, a sewing machine salesman, who died five years later from a heart attack. Eddy declared her last husband's death was not from a coronary, but from "arsenic poison" that had been "mentally administered" by her enemies. Since CS denies the reality of death, her husband was "made to think he was dead" by a "mental assassin."
As a result of spinal weakness, Eddy committed herself to the care of Phineas Parkhurst Quimby in October 1862. Quimby was a "mental healer" who believed that illness and disease could be cured through positive thoughts and healthy attitudes. She believed herself to have been healed by him on November 7, 1862. The beginning of Christian Science, however, did not occur until February 1866, when Mrs. Eddy claimed to have had a near fatal fall on an icy pavement. She said she was instantly healed when "the healing Truth dawned upon my senses." Dr. Alvin Cushing, the doctor who treated Eddy for her fall, claimed that the fall was not "near fatal" or critical, as Eddy maintained. He denied any knowledge of a "miraculous" or "instantaneous" healing. (See Georgine Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science, [1909]).
In 1875, Eddy published Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, much of which was taken from Quimby's works, and passed off as a "new revelation." On August 23, 1879, Eddy founded "The Church of Christ, Scientist" (informally called CS) "to commemorate the word and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing." (See CS Church Manual, pg. 17). Her sect, with its book and message that sickness and death don't exist, began with approximately fifty people and grew to about one million worldwide when she died in 1910.
Unhealthy Theology
In the following exposition, all citations to Eddy's book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, will be referenced simply as "S&H."
- Christian Science begins with a pantheistic view of the nature of God. God is “All-in-All,” anything that is not God does not exist. “Nothing possesses reality nor existence except the divine Mind and His ideas.” (S&H pg. 331)
- If God is Life and God is all, then non-Life [death] does not exist. “If it is true that man lives, this fact can never change in Science to the opposite belief that man dies . . . Life is real, and death is the illusion.” (S&H pgs.427-8)
- If God is healthy and God is all, then non-health (sickness) does not exist. "Man is never sick, for mind is not sick and matter cannot be. (S&H pg. 393)
- If God is Good and God is all, then non-Good (evil) does not exist. Since God must exist, non-existence (death) does not exist. Everyone must exist forever in this universe
- God did not create the universe. Genesis 1 is simply referring to "the unfolding of spiritual ideas and their identities" in the mind of God. (S&H pg. 503)
- Jesus Christ is not God. "The Christian who believes in the First Commandment is a monotheist . . . [he] recognizes that Jesus Christ is not God as Jesus Himself declared, but is the Son of God." (S&H pg. 361). Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea; hence the duality of Jesus the Christ." (S&H pg. 473)
- Jesus cast out devils, mediating between what is and is not until a perfect consciousness is obtained. He healed disease as He healed sin; He treated them both, not as in or of matter, but as mortal beliefs to be exterminated..." Christ's death was not real, only apparent. "Our Master fully and finally demonstrated divine Science in his victory over death and the grave . . . Jesus’ students, not sufficiently advanced to understand fully their Master’s triumph, did not perform many wonderful works until they saw Him after His crucifixion and learned that He did not die." (S&H pgs. 45, 350-351)
- Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is the "first book" which has been "uncontaminated by human hypothesis." (S&H pgs. 99, 139, 456-457). Christian Scientists feel that her book offers the complete spiritual meaning of the Bible. They believe that this full meaning could not have been available to them without Mrs. Eddy’s "revelation"
- Mrs. Eddy was a spiritualistic medium for about 25 years. There is an openness to certain psychic abilities in S&H, although misinterpreted in divine terms. "Christian Science healing" may be considered a form of psychic healing. It's origin therefore, is occultic.
"Christian Science Practitioners" and More Strange Teachings
"Christian Scientists and others in need of healing often rely on Christian Science practitioners, professionals who are committed to the ministry of healing. This ministry involves consultation with the sick, discussion of Christian Science principles and prayer."
Use of medical professionals is discouraged (at best) and they are to be shunned (at worst). Hence, "Christian Science teaches, however, that while both medicine and Christian Science seek the healing of the patient, they rest on very different bases and are therefore incompatible with each other in practical situations. It makes little sense, [Christian] Scientists believe, to administer medical treatment to a patient while at the same time denying the ultimate reality of matter and the reality of material cause and effect, which is the basis of medical treatment."
They deny diseases are genetic. Eddy wrote, "The [Christian] Scientist knows that there can be no hereditary disease, since matter is not intelligent."
Insanity should be treated by prayer and psychotropic medication avoided. "The supposition that we can correct insanity by the use of purgatives and narcotics is in itself a mild species of insanity."
(All quotes directly above in this section are taken from The Christian Science Tradition. See www.trinity-health.org/documents/Ethics/4%20Religious%20Traditions/Christian%20Scientists/Christian%20Science.pdf).
While some of the published tenets of the sect sound orthodox, they have a different meaning from the usual definition in Christianity. To give some examples:
God: Impersonal-personal; “spiritually pantheistic” (someone who believed God is everything and that matter is an illusion)
Jesus: A highly enlightened Christian Scientist.
The Christ: The divine manifestation of God/Christian Science.
The Holy Spirit: Christian Science.
The Trinity: Interpreted as "Life, Truth and Love"
Salvation: By awareness, divine realization.
Sin: Ignorance; the false beliefs of "mortal mind."
Sin: Ignorance; the false beliefs of "mortal mind."
Satan: A Christian myth.
The Bible: An inferior revelation properly interpreted only by Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.
Death: Non-existent.
Proselytizing "Christian Scientists"
Do not attack Mary Baker Eddy.
Any attack on their founder will be rejected as "persecution."
Ask them to read the entire passage in the Bible whenever an ellipsis [ . . . ] is used in a quote from the Bible in any Christian Science literature.
"Believe . . . and thou shalt be saved." (S&H pg. 23). Have them read Acts 16:31.
"These signs shall follow them that believe . . . they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." (S&H pg. 38). Have them read St. Mark 16:17-18.
Help them to see the intrinsic contradictions of the sect's teaching.
According to CS, we can't trust our properly basic beliefs. Our senses and mind deceive us into thinking that sickness and death are real (along with the rest of the material world). Therefore, if our most basic beliefs and our physical senses can't be trusted, then how can we trust our eyes when we read S&H, or hear the "truths" of Christian Science with our ears?
If God is Good and God is all, as CS teaches, where did the idea (or illusion) that there is such a thing as evil (the opposite of Good or God) originate, since all is part of the essence of God (and must therefore be exclusively Good)?
Either evil really exists outside the mind (ontological reality), or it is merely illusory, without any existence outside the mind. If the illusion of evil is ontologically real, then CS affirms the reality of evil (i.e., the evil of the illusion). There then would be no difference between having your tooth pulled in reality or the illusion of one being pulled. If the illusion has no existence outside the mind, why send out "practitioners" to "cure" an illusion?
If death isn't real, then we just imagine our loved ones are dead? Where are they that we can't see them? Did the "evil illusion" take them to a better place (in which case the illusion isn't really bad), or did they cease to exist, which CS teaches is impossible?
Conclusion
The wacky world of the Christian Science sect is getting smaller. False claims of "miraculous cures" are getting debunked, and the idea that "death is an illusion" is being seen as counter-intuitive to our most properly basic beliefs. Many members of the sect have left when family members suffered and died needlessly for refusing medical treatment in response to curable ailments, and opted for a CS "practitioner" to pray and read from Eddy's occult inspired book instead. We should feel sorry for the poor souls in the sect, who think everything around them is an illusion, and do all we can to bring them into the light and truth that is Christ and His One True Church.
In writing this post, I was reminded of one of my beloved philosophy professors when I was an undergrad. He was discussing solipsism, the belief that the self is all that can be known to exist. It is not too far removed from CS, except that the sect does acknowledge other minds or persons. My professor remarked, "I've never met a solipsist, when I challenged him, who was willing to step in front of an oncoming truck."
I just finished reading "The Everlasting Man", and Chesterton frequently mentions this sect and exposes them against the True Church. Man, the more I read these posts, the stranger all these protestant sect become. I knew they all have wacky theology from my experience with some protestants but never new just how strange they get.
ReplyDeleteDavidm
David,
DeleteYou make an interesting point. No one from the Protestant “Reformation” would recognize CS as even being remotely “Christian” in ANY sense of the word. When Luther and company rejected the Magisterium for private interpretation, the floodgates were open to “anything goes.”
In contemporary “Comparative Religion” texts, CS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc, form a new category of “new religious movements.” They are not classified with Protestants, even though they descend from them.
And you’re right—they get more bizarre all the time!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Never knew a Christian Scientist, however, years ago I met a lady who was in a Pentecostal group that didn't believe in medicine or medical treatment. Her husband became very ill and couldn't seek medical treatment and died leaving her a widow to raise children alone. Ironically, the pastor of the group became very ill and sought medical treatment for himself in a hospital!! I guess the pastor couldn't practice what he preached. Very sad and very dangerous for those involved in such groups.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteAbsolutely. What's even worse are the poor children who are refused medical treatment by their CS parents on medical grounds!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteWould such groups as the CS who won't allow medical treatment be considered a cult?
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThat is an excellent question. It really comes down to how you define a "cult." It's not a word I use lightly, as Traditionalists have been called "a cult." As someone once said, "A cult is any religion except for mine."
I believe a fair definition of a cult is a group that uses coercion (be it physical, psychological, pecuniary, etc.)to get members to join or to prevent them from leaving. Hence, a false religion is a SECT but not necessarily a CULT. Lutheranism is a sect. Scientology is a cult.
In my opinion, any group that would deny a child reasonable medical care is morally culpable (even if not legally liable) of child abuse. If the parents FREELY belong to the group, it is not a cult, even though horrendous. If the parents are coerced to belong, and subject their children to such abuse, it would merit the infamous title of a "cult."
---Introibo
This sect reminds me of those who believe in a Grand Conspiracy. Reality is an illusion, but it is they who believe in such nonsense that suffer delusion. The fact that a woman founded that religion and called it Christian, says it all for me. I wonder what CS believe about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church."
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteIt really is a bad “Matrix” movie-type of strange theology!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Last year an unaffiliated Protestant church was passing out info in our neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteI just happened to be taking out the garbage when they approached me.
On grounds of being Catholic I rejected their pamphlet + he became offended by saying/questioning me.
"It's all about Jesus ain't it?!?!"
Being tired + not wanting argue I simply stated
"Yes sir but I'm Catholic."
He shook his head and walked away utterly disgusted.
I knew if I said anything about catholicism it would've driven him further away from any potential future conversion.
Also,it made me experience just how much damage the post 1965 Novus Ordo ecumenism project has done to mankind.
Through no fault of their own,these 2 protestants have nothing except praise and flattery from the Novus Ordo false "Pope's."
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteThat's the very sad state of affairs we are in.
God Bless,
---Introibo
It strikes me that some of the tenants of CS seem reminiscent of Buddhism (what with death being an illusion) and Islam (what with Jesus not actually dying on the cross, which the Qu'ran claims if I recall correctly).
ReplyDeleteThere are certain strains of behavior (such as regarding the aversion to medicine) that seem to be more commonplace in a variety of circles in America today, invariably assorted with a cascade of conspiracies.
Although conspiracies in and of themselves have existed throughout history, the levels at which some people go to attribute *everything* to. conspiracy boggle the mind at not only their impracticality, but also at just how many people would have to be "in" on it.
A particular example from Twitter comes to mind, on the subject of Earth's geometric shape; when pointing out the empirical evidence indicating why the Earth isn't flat, someone posited that God may be actively keeping us under an illusion that only makes it seem like we're on a globe.
That this necessarily implies God actively deceives everyone on a daily basis - thus being more akin to Allah of Mohammed than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - apparently escaped him.
But yeah, Christian Science. Another example of reason gone wrong.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Simple Man,
DeleteAmazing how the “Great Conspiracy” idea has swept up so many Traditionalists. The idea of a “flat Earth” and a God who deceives just makes us look bonkers.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Empirical evidence demonstrates that the Earth is not a ball in a fake medium, friend. The physics of water and the second law of thermodynamics disprove your false religion. Oh, and the Bible does, too.
Deletehttps://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/
https://www.openbible.info/topics/flat_earth
But I am sure you allow your understanding of Scripture to be "figurative" whenever it conflicts with your Freemasonic understanding of terra firma--despite the fact that Pope Leo XIII reminding us that
"15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate."
http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
But you're welcome to provide the "empirical evidence" that the Earth is actually a globe, a model that if you believe is 100% reification fallacy.
Oh, and Introibo, God does not deceive. His Scripture is clear that the Earth is terra firma. The space hoax is a Freemasonic invention. God is not deceiving you--men are. His Scripture has not changed.
DeleteIan,
DeleteOh, yes I know. All the world’s scientists are Freemasonic agents of Satan who either have no evidence that the world is round, or are part of the Grand Conspiracy involving almost everyone except for you.
The moon landing is fake, Bigfoot is real, and Elvis works as a bag-boy at the local supermarket. Does that version of “reality” help you make it through the day until you next dose of medication is administered? I’m glad.
We know the earth is round from PICTURES TAKEN FROM SPACE. But that’s the Grand Conspiracy not real.
Here is the proof in the most simple form.
https://www.livescience.com/amp/24310-flat-earth-belief.html
None of the approved theologians taught that the Earth was flat and none were censured.
Then again, Ian knows best.
—-Introibo
Ian,
Delete"But you're welcome to provide the "empirical evidence" that the Earth is actually a globe, a model that if you believe is 100% reification fallacy."
Reification is defined as when an abstraction is treated as if it were concrete reality.
The globe in this case is not being *confused* with the concrete Earth itself (since no one is actually claiming that); rather, it is argued as being a suitable representation of what we observe (as some global models are more precise than others).
However, the very model of the Flat Earth is contradicted by so many different observations that Flat Earth in and of itself is an abstract idea treated as though it were the real thing, despite all evidence to the contrary!
The one guilty of reification, alas, appears to be you.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
You are talking about a narrow temporal section of "approved theologians" and ignoring Church Fathers and Doctors. I wonder why.
ReplyDeleteThe Freemasonic heliocentric model (which is not even heliocentric anymore but is some bizarre charade with the sun hurtling toward some "great attractor") is not the work of the sea of "scientists" today but of a select few men a few hundred years ago. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and a handful of men who all were obvious Freemasons, alchemists, and occult weirdos. They are the ones who have convinced you that Earth is a ball in space (or is it an oblate spheroid like Tyson says?) and that a magic force attracts things to each other. The Earth has a core of molten metal that despite no proof whatsoever that this is the case, just cartoons.
The whataboutism that you engage in is all the proof a rational person needs that you have lost the plot. No one is talking about Elvis or Bigfoot except you, and your ploy to conflate the moon landing hoaxes with such absurdities as Bigfoot and Elvis-not-dead stories is evidence that you are not meant to be taken seriously, that you are grasping at straws to build a weak, pathetic strawman.
Anyone who looks into this for a few days will quickly discover that the "Flat Earth Society" your article references is in fact a bunch of (likely paid) actors who believe in nonsense just as fanciful as the globe spinning through the fake medium of space. They are not taken seriously by anyone who investigates terra firma and--like anything that receives attention these days--are compromised by paid actors.
You can continue to believe "approved theologians" (who are not saints and have made no mark on the magisterium). I will believe Scripture, the true Popes, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and the scientific method.
Oh, and no "picture" has been taken from space. NASA and everyone else admit that they photoshop their cartoon images of the Earth. The Apollo astronauts (forget which mission) were caught on camera trying to fake the spherical Earth by covering a window and taking a photo from their airplane. "American Moon" is a wonderful documentary about those farces. But I am sure you will let the Beast System, begun and perpetuated by Freemasons and Satanic Jews, dictate your opinions and views for you.
Ian,
DeleteIf the earth is flat, why haven't you fallen off?
Ian,
DeleteI really hope how ludicrous you sound. The Moon landing is fake. The Flat Earth Society is “made up of paid actors” to discredit those who know the truth. You know science better than scientists.
It’s all part of the all-knowing, all seeing Great Conspiracy. You reject how the Church teaches us. If approved theologians like Pohle went against the teachings of the Fathers, Pope Pius XI and XII were ignorant and knowingly allowed heresy to be taught. They could not be true popes.
@anon12:16
The answer is easy. Invisible Goblins hold you. The Great Conspiracy doesn’t want you to know that.
—-Introibo
Ian,
DeleteShould Catholics throw away their Infant of Prague statues with Jesus holding a round earth in his hand or pictures of the BVM showing her standing on a round earth. Was the Catholic Church before Vatican II part of a Masonic conspiracy for allowing them to be in just about every church?
I suppose you believe the moon is a hologram as well or that we have two suns. These floating beliefs along with believing in a flat earth are totally retarded.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteWell stated!!
——Introibo
Lee,
DeleteUntil you can provide the necessary proof that such a statue denoted a belief in a) outer space, b) earth as a "planet" (ie, a wandering star no different from Mars or Venus) instead of terra firma, c) heliocentrism, then bringing up the statue is a moot point. Moreover, it is a representation of the world and not the world itself. To think that we live on that thing is to commit the fallacy of reification.
And if you think the Church was without its problems before Vatican II, you are as naive as can be. Go read Liberalism Is a Sin and see what it was like in the 1800s.
The moon is most definitely not a rock, nor is it a hologram. It is, as the Bible clearly states, a light in the sky. No idea what you are talking about regarding two suns outside of some pre-Christian beliefs.
The Infant of Prague is holding a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger?fbclid=IwAR13NFgnvBND1dAVQA0BTBOkeQwxogHZv6dvFdsU1ipordu2gf7-5DmjrNA
Delete"[21] Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? [22] It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:21 Douay-Reims Bible
DeleteThe original design for the miraculous medal according to father Joseph Dirvin was called the virgin of the Globe because it showed Our Lady standing on a globe and holding a globe in her hands, the Blessed Virgin Mary told St. Catherine Laboure that the Globe she was holding represents the whole world.
Delete“The ball which you see represents the whole world, specially France and each person in particular”
St. Bede states in the “reckoning of time”
Delete“The reason why the same [calendar] days are of an unequal length is the roundness of the earth, for not without reason is it called the ‘orb of the world’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature It is in fact a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe it is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions”
Ian,
DeleteAfter clicking this link: https://miqcenter.com/products/8x10-infant-of-prague-pt06-rp3014?variant=39003659399 Would you say the picture of the child Jesus is holding a.) a round shape b.) a rectangular shape c.) triangular shape d.) no shape because it's flat or e.) none of the above because it's all an illusion?
A representation of the world is a demonstration of what it is believed to look like. You said "Moreover, it is a representation of the world and not the world itself." This is a contradiction because if it is not the world itself then how can it be a representation of it, which you admit it is? Round like a ball is what you saw.
Members of the Church have always been bad since the time of Judas Iscariot. This is different than saying The Church itself has problems. The Church itself is perfect in it's teachings and disciplines and is guided by the Holy Ghost. If you say otherwise you're a heretic.
There are those who believe that the moon is a hologram and there are those who believe in two suns. There are also those who believe Australia doesn't exist and there are those who believe that satellites aren't real. A lot of these same people believe in a flat earth. Not saying you believe exactly as they do, but it doesn't matter because all of them are stupid beliefs. That was my point.
Lee
Ian,
DeleteProve the allegation that Galileo was a Freemason. Thanks.
JoAnn
JoAnn,
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/world/europe/23galileo.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y
All the "scientists" in the realms of astronomy and evolution in their infancy, the names you and I know, were Freemasons or Jews.
Petrone,
The Latin is "gyrum" in that verse. Does not mean globe necessarily and has been translated as circle elsewhere. Still, is this the example in the OT where you can find support for the heliocentric model while every other verse related to the Earth is merely poetic? I mean, the verse even refers to the heavens as a canopy. That is decidedly NOT a universe as you space rock believers would view it.
Like most people who do no actual research, you are hung up on strawmen and have no real understanding of what the issues are. The Earth is likely round with the magnetic north as its center, but it is most assuredly not a rock in space that we are all stuck to due to a magic force. Round =/= planet Earth as you imagine it flying through space.
And Lee,
You do not know what the reification fallacy is, so I will go ahead and ignore your nonsense until you can understand that representations of things are not the things themselves. See the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
I do appreciate that you gave up the game, though, when you said "what it is BELIEVED to look like". Belief has no business in science. That is why your space rock BELIEF is a religion. It is not science. Never was; never will be.
Ian,
DeleteIt's you who can't prove the world is flat because you don't want to BELIEVE that it is round. You put so much emphasis on such a subject that you make a religion out of it, like it's dogma and as if anybody should care to share the same viewpoint as you. You ignore "nonsense" because you are nonsensical.
You said the Church before Vatican II has problems. What kind of problems? Problems in teaching? Problems with it's disciplines? Problems with it's laws? Please tell us.
Lee
Ian,
DeleteDid you ever stop to think that the Masons hijacked or tried to hijack Galileo and his research for themselves? I read where Galileo wanted to be a Priest in his early life. By the way are you against medicine and Drs., as alot of Drs. and medical researchers are Jewish? Do you go to a Dr. or take medicine that may have came from Freemason's or Jews?
JoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteGoing by the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Freemasonry: although it cannot be denied that they are an insidious group whose aims are opposed to the Church, they certainly had a trumped-up sense of self-importance:
xxx
"Representative Masons, however, extol the pretended salutary influence of their order on human culture and progress. "Masonry", says Frater, Grand Orator, Washington, "is the shrine of grand thoughts, of beautiful sentiments, the seminary for the improvement of the moral and the mental standard of its members. As a storehouse of morality it rains benign influence on the mind and heart". [174] "Modern Freemasonry", according to other Masons, "is a social and moral reformer". [175] "No one", says the "Keystone" of Chicago, "has estimated or can estimate the far reaching character of the influence of Masonry in the world. It by no means is limited the bodies of the Craft. Every initiate is a light bearer, a center of light". [176] "In Germany as in the United States and Great Britain those who have been leaders of men in intellectual, moral and social life, have been Freemasons. Eminent examples in the past are the Brothers Fichte, Herder, Wieland, Lessing, Goethe. Greatest of them all was I.W. von Goethe. Well may we be proud of such a man" [177] etc. German Masons [178] claim for Freemasonry a considerable part in the splendid development ofGerman literature in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These claims, however, when critically examined, prove to be either groundless or exaggerated. English Freemasonry, being then at a low intellectual and moral level and retrograding towards orthodoxy, was not qualified to be the originator or a leading factor in the freethinking"Culture of Enlightenment." German Masonry, then dominated by the Swedish system and the Strict Observance and intellectually and morally degenerated, as Masonic historians themselves avow, was in no better plight. In truth the leading literary men of the epoch, Lessing, Goethe, Herder, etc. were cruelly disabused and disappointed by what they saw and experienced in their lodge life. [179] Lessing spoke with contempt of the lodge life; Goethe characterized the Masonic associations and doings as "fools and rogues"; Herder wrote, 9 January, 1786, to the celebrated philologist Bro. Heyne; "I bear a deadly hatred to all secret societiesand, as a result of my experience, both within their innermost circles and outside, I wish them all to thedevil. For persistent domineering intrigues and the spirit of cabal creep beneath the cover". [180]
Freemasonry, far from contributing to the literary greatness of these or other leading men, profited by the external splendour which their membership reflected on it. But the advantage was by no means deserved, for even at the height of their literary fame, not they, but common swindlers, like Johnson, Cagliostro, etc., were the centres round which the Masonic world gravitated. All the superior men belonging to Freemasonry: Fichte, Fessler, Krause, Schröder, Mossdorf, Schiffman, Findel, etc., so far as they strove to purge lodge life from humbug, were treated ignominiously by the bulk of the average Masons and even by lodge authorities. Men of similar turn of mind are stigmatized by English and American Masonic devotees as "materialists" and "iconoclasts". "
xxx
The whole entry is quite a fascinating read: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Ian,
DeleteWhat church do you attend? Is it on the planet Earth?
Ian,
ReplyDelete1) If geocentric cosmology were a matter of divine and Catholic faith, the Holy Office of Pope Plus VII would not have allowed publication of non-geocentric works as of 1820.
2) Here's a simple photographic contradiction of the Earth's flatness: https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pontchartrain.jpg
3) Your challenge as a proponent of the Flat Earth model is to come up with an actual map of the Flat Earth that explains empirical observations as well (if not better, since you believe it to be true) as the global Earth model. That in and of itself should be step one. Good luck!
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Simple Man,
DeleteThank you for bringing sanity to the inanity!!
—-Introibo
1) Show me where any Pope said we must assent that the Earth moves around the sun to be Catholic. Thanks in advance. Also, the model you believe in has warped so badly since the infancy of heliocentrism that the model they pushed back then has nothing to do with the model today. Now you have to accept false phenomena like dark matter and dark energy (placeholders to obscure the fact that these "scientists'" calculations are so far off observation that it is scary), and you have to believe the sun is moving toward something that is pulling it (ie, it isn't heliocentric any more).
Delete2)Laughable garbage. Here is one instance of the Black Swan video that is making the rounds, disproving your necessary geometric horizon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plrie5tUMGs&feature=emb_title
Simply put, we see too far for the supposed curve of the Earth. Furthermore, asserting that the horizon is proof of anything geometric is de fact wrong as the horizon is an APPARENT line that has nothing to do with geometry. To reify such a line as a mathematical reality is to not even understand what it is in the first place.
3) Reification fallacy 100%. Maps and models are not what we live on. They are not scientific because they have nothing to do with science, which is a method of observation, investigation, and experimentation. You're welcome to provide one valid scientific hypothesis in astronomy. But you won't find one because there aren't any. It isn't a science. It is a religion.
So, sorry, step one is not reifying terra firma into a map or model. Step one is reading the Bible and using your God-given senses to recognize that we live on a motionless plane and not a ball in a fake medium spinning off in all directions.
Ian,
DeleteApparently, the Holy Office has left it an open Question as to whether we believe in geocentric of non-geocentric cosmology, since it doesn't pertain to divine and Catholic faith. Since it's left open, I've opted for the non-geocentric model due to the totality of evidence.
Regarding the Black Swan video (who's a rather rude and vulgar fellow, isn't he?): *any* surface, flat or spherical, will have a geometric horizon. That's not exactly a controversial statement to make. That observations of the visual horizon support spherical Earth more than a flat Earth are manifold, and in my experience, claims that we see "too far" for the supposed curve of the Earth end up being reduced to inaccurate calculations or misconceptions about distances. But if you'd like, you're free to get the highest power telescope and try to view the Rocky Mountains from the eastern edge of Kansas (spoiler alert: you won't be able to, because the Earth is in the way).
But the fact you point blank reduce astronomy to religion kind of says it all about your particular view on the matter.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
P.S. If we do live on a motionless plane, why hasn't anyone discovered the edge, yet? They would undoubtedly become quite famous.
A Simple Man,
DeleteMore strawmen and a total lack of understanding as to what reality is. You are the typical fool who thinks that, absent a curve, we should be able to see forever. No, the atmosphere does not allow us to see forever, but it does allow us to see hundreds of miles in the distance in some cases, with no measurable curvature, totally destroying your necessary geometric horizon. You also cannot even read the definition of the word "horizon", either, seeing as if you could you would see that it is defined as an "apparent line", which means not actual and which means not geometric. If it were geometric, you would have the same line based on the same calculation every single time. In reality, you don't. End of story. Welcome to flat earth.
You also can't declare that "observations of the visual horizon support spherical Earth more than a flat Earth are manifold, and in my experience, claims that we see "too far" for the supposed curve of the Earth end up being reduced to inaccurate calculations or misconceptions about distances" because that is not science. You need observations to comport to your supposed geometric horizon (a contradiction in terms) 100% of the time. No exceptions. One observation, just one, that is further than your geometric horizon (a contradiction in terms) renders your appeal to a geometric horizon (a contradiction in terms) moot. Never mind that your whole model is based on a presupposed r value for Earth that has never been demonstrated or proven and is therefore scientifically false.
But you go ahead and persist in anecdotes to validate your religion. I will trust in the Bible, reason, and science, none of which support your space rock belief.
Ian,
DeleteRegarding your claim that astronomy is not a science: the very existence of Neptune was predicted using the theory of gravitational interactions. In the 1820s, Alexis Bouvard noticed irregularities in the measured orbit of Uranus, and hypothesized an unknown planet was therefore perturbing its orbit. After his death, Neptune was discovered with the aid of telescopes in the 1840s. If you don't consider that to be an example of an empirical science, that's not my problem.
In like manner, if you consider that Earth's curvature has never been established - in spite of the observational evidence from space stations and satellites that you choose to ignore - then that's also not my problem.
For all your professed devotion to the Bible, reason, and science, you appear to be out of step with the Church as to Biblical cosmology (namely, the Holy Office as deemed geocentrism vs non-geocentrism to be an open question, so long as God's activity as Creator is not discounted), out of step with science (because for all your continued use of the reification buzzword, the globe Earth model accurately corresponds to what we observe in reality; no flat Earth model to this date can claim that, and there never will be one, because our planet isn't flat), and are being quite unreasonable in the process.
Lastly, regarding Galileo being a Freemason: just because his corpse was dug up over a century after his death and then venerated by Freemasons does not make him a Freemason (anymore than Mormon baptism of a corpse retroactively makes that dead person a Mormon). Per the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Freemasonry, although the term "freemason" has existed since medieval times, its transition from describing actual tradesman who practiced masonry free from any guild to the actual secret society can only be traced back to the formation of England's Grand Lodge in 1717, decades after Galileo's death.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteInstances like this where you obviously are a bad faith actor apologizing for Freemasons digging up one of their own and doing all sorts of odd things makes me further convinced that your name is a direct reference to that movie for obvious reasons and that you are simply here to muddy the waters and poison the well. Do you know of any non-Freemasons that the Freemasons have dug up and performed necromancy with? Their veneration of Galileo is proof he is one of them. You think they would do such things to an actual Catholic when their goal has always been the destruction of the Church?
Ian,
DeleteHow have I apologized for the Freemasons digging up Galileo's grave? I simply pointed out that all public knowledge of when Freemasons began as a secret society (based on both Masonic and anti-Masonic sources) can only be traced back to the formation of England's Grand Lodge in 1717, which renders Galileo's status as an actual Freemason doubtful. It certainly not *impossible*, but doubtful, pending some positive evidence from Galileo or his contemporaries (because if such an association were truly well known, it likely would have been mentioned in his trial).
Also, I have no idea what movie you're referring to.
"Do you know of any non-Freemasons that the Freemasons have dug up and performed necromancy with?"
No, and I really don't care to know.
"Their veneration of Galileo is proof he is one of them."
That still does not follow. Galileo was a rather infamous figure and held by many to be an anti-Catholic icon in the years following his trial and death. That still doesn't make him a Freemason.
"You think they would do such things to an actual Catholic when their goal has always been the destruction of the Church?"
There are many valid reasons to criticize Galileo (such as his palpably schismatic and disobedient behavior towards lawful Church authority) without bringing the Freemasons into it. I don't think anyone here is arguing that he was a saint.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Ian,
Delete"The veneration of Galileo is proof he is one of them. You think they would do such things to an actual Catholic when their goal has always been the destruction of the Church?"
You make no sense in the above statement. The Freemason's did destroy the Actual Catholic Church at Vatican II.
JoAnn
I find it hard to believe that people actually find this flat Earth subject worth spending valuable time debating. The Novus Ordo and a fake "Pope" are duping people and leading souls to hell and some people find spending valuable time discussing flat Earth vs round Earth a viable subject. Considering the lack of unity and differences among the Traditionalists the flat Earth nonsense just tends to further the gap between Traditionalists instead of trying to bridge the gap and garner unity. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteI agree. If someone wants to believe the Earth is flat, or Elvis is alive, etc., good for them. Just keep it out of theology and trying to make it some “truth of faith.”
—-Introibo
JoAnn,
DeleteYou'd be surprised at how much energy people spend on producing "proofs" for a Flat Earth.
But in all fairness, the amount of loopholes and conspiracies one has to erect in order to truly assent to the Flat Earth model tend to leak over into other topics, as the entire edifice doesn't stand by itself in isolation for long.
Just speaking from anecdotal experience based on years of Internet observations.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteTo what end and why is "flat Earth" deemed by some to be of such importance? Thanks.
JoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteThe overall factors very from person to person, but there are some common ones.
1) Religious fidelity. There are many who simply desire to trust in the inerrancy of Scripture, and utilize certain passages (of which almost all that I recall being used are written in poetic manner) to affirm the Earth's immobility. Those who oppose their interpretations are simply deemed as trying to stand against Scripture, and are thus dismissed, regardless of what other conundrums this puts them in. This particular strand is mostly found in fundamentalist Protestants. (The Catholic version of this also utilizes various commentaries and writings from the Church Father's and various saints to the same effect; however, reading on the history and background of Galileo's trial unveils a lot of interesting details that tend to get missed, and are really fascinating.)
2) Personal incredulity. Many cannot perceive the Earth's motion or curvature, and thus dismiss it, preferring supposed simplicity or their own sensory experiences instead (it's a particular flavor of solipsism). A lot of this stems from ignorance or misunderstanding of the various laws of nature, as many who attempt to go beyond vague notions to specifics about how a Flat Earth would physically work runs into a lot of contradictions (the Dunning-Kruger Effect comes to mind). That being said, because they place such a high value only in what they themselves can sense, they tend to distrust others who speak to the contrary. This also ties into the next one:
3) Distrust of authority. Whether it be scientists, academia, institutions, experts of various stripes, and so on, there are whole laundry lists of examples where figures of authority have failed or lied to people throughout history. However, this distrust of experts also is not bound to any one subject; given how many experts (regardless of ethnicity, sex, nationality, profession, or religious background) speak of a global Earth, one must posit (to buy into the Flat Earth) that *all* of them must therefore be in on the conspiracy, regardless of how untenable such a situation would be. In league with #2 above, it is associated with an inability to trust in the expertise or words of someone on a matter that you have not verified for yourself. (to be continued...)
(continuing on)
Delete4) Persecution complex. Flat Earth proponents tend to be more vocal than globe Earth proponents (likely because the latter feel like they don't have anything to prove). Also, some of them have rather good presentations and *seemingly* solid evidence, which - to those who may lack understanding on the topics being discussed with regards to physics, astronomy, geography, and so on - may appear convincing because of this vocality. Further, there is a degree of excitement and intrigue, as one who holds to a Flat Earth inevitably concludes that there exists some massive, world-changing conspiracy to "keep the sheeple in check", as compared to acknowledging some of the actual complexities of the world we live in. Criticisms of the Flat Earth model are interpreted as criticisms of the individual holding that belief, and so they feel a psychological need to double down. (Of course, if you want to feel persecuted, a simpler and more efficacious way to do this is to simply be a devout follower of Jesus. The world will persecute you eventually!) The size of the conspiracy which would thus exist makes one feel like an underdog, and the 'fact' that you know "the truth about Flat Earth" makes you one of the special few have received 'the vision of the anointed' to turn a phrase (or, in more popular parlance, to be one of the few who have escaped the Matrix).
Those are the four big ones I can think of off-hand, as most people have a mixture of the above informing their belief in the Flat Earth model (which also tends to go hand-in-hand with geocentrism). In addition, most people are indeed sincere about that belief, but the advent of the Internet has made it easier for fringe theories of *any* kind to be found, thus allowing them to have seemingly outsized influence relative to their size.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
JoAnn,
DeleteThe heliocentric model, the Big Bang, and Evolution are the unholy trinity of atheism. They all dilute God's role in creation and turn the God of the Bible into a god of the gaps seeing as Genesis and the current "scientific" narrative have almost nothing in common. The reason people are atheists today is often because they see themselves as insignificant evolved monkeys on a rock in a fake medium (outer space). You are not going to convince them of the Bible's truth because they see it as unenlightened garbage from a bunch of desert nomads who didn't know the first thing about "science".
A Simple Man,
You have nothing but vague pronouncements and easily rebuked "proofs" that Earth is a rock spinning in space. Prove gravity exists and is able to hold water to the Earth as it spins around and around. As a corollary, prove that the core of the earth is molten iron (cartoons do not count).
Water, incidentally, always finds its level and fills the CONTAINER it is in. It never, not once, sticks to the outside of an object. And Newton's magic gravity isn't going to cut it because a) he was a demonic alchemist, b) he himself never proved it and said it was merely a possibility, and c) Einstein's bending of space-time (a concept and therefore not real) replaced Newton's idea of gravity about a century ago. And we all know that concepts are not real but merely found in the realm of ideas. Space-time is not science.
You are also welcome to prove gas can exist without a container (the firmament), which is also necessary for your MODEL to be true. But this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, so it is de fact impossible.
Please consider spending less time armchair psychologizing people on the internet and more time investigating the truth.
Ian,
DeleteThe Big Bang Theory was developed by Catholic priest and scientist Georges Lemaître. His works were PRAISED BY POPE PIUS XII.
The Big Bang was PROHIBITED from being taught in the former Soviet Union precisely BECAUSE it points to the existence of God. The Big Bang has been instrumental in converting atheists to belief in God Through the Kalam cosmological argument popularized by philosopher Dr William Lane Craig.
However, a real priest and scientist, praised by a true pope, didn’t realize they were advancing atheism. PLEASE.
—-Introibo
Ian,
Delete"Proving" gravity is a misnomer, as it is simply a term given to a certain observed phenomenon (namely, that objects accelerate towards each when otherwise left to their own devices). There are different theories that attempt to explain this phenomenon, with the most well known in modern memory being Newton's (which describes gravity as a force) and Einstein's (which describes it as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime).
Scientific theories are not "proven", per se; they get established through repetitive experimentation, not just by those which support it, but the totality of the failed attempts to disprove it (since a scientific theory must be falsifiable to undergo valid testing).
Regarding the structure of Earth's core: its size, structure, and composition are inferred based on magnetic field data and seismic scans in particular (to use an analogy, earthquakes are to the planet's innards what X-rays and CAT-scans are in medical imaging). Measuring seismic waves from the epicenter of an earthquake is how we've deduced that the Earth's structure beneath the crust is layered in approximately three distinct strata of differing compositions. Of course, research and study is still ongoing to this day.
Regarding water "never" sticking to the outside of an object: trivially disproven by water droplets on hydrophobic surfaces. https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/water-drops-on-leaf-isabel-poulin.jpg
Regarding water always finding its level: "level" and "flat" are not equivalent terms. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/flat-vs-level-540x540.jpg
Regarding gas not escaping a container violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics: firstly, the 2nd law deals with the total level of entropy in a system, so I'm not sure it really applies here. Secondly, Earth's gravity keeps air particles from freely moving into the vacuum of space as they otherwise would. https://flatearth.ws/atmosphere-vacuum
Regarding "armchair psychologizing": I was only answering JoAnn's question about why people spend a lot of energy arguing for a Flat Earth (based on my own observations over the years). I certainly don't doubt that you're motivated by a search for truth. I do, however, think you're misinformed on a number of topics.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
DeleteIan,
"The heliocentric model, the Big Bang, and Evolution are the unholy trinity of atheism."
There have always been atheists and, unfortunately, there will always be atheists. Subscribing atheism to heliocentrism,etc.,is nonsense.
JoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteSadly, you are mistaken. There has never in history been as many atheists as there are today. And all these poor souls are atheists PRECISELY because they subscribe to the religion of scientism. If you think you are an evolved monkey stuck to the outside of a rock in space due to a magic unobservable force who exists by random chance, you are very likely to become a nihilstic narcissistic atheist. And of course, these lies are taught to every young person when they are most vulnerable to brainwashing via cartoons in school textbooks. You think the Earth has a crust, mantle, and a core not because of science or even observation but because of a cartoon you saw in a science textbook. Just like everyone else.
A Simple Man,
DeleteYou are sadly parroting very low-tier understandings of scientism. Let me, again, demolish your religious beliefs that you masquerade as science:
1) There is a lamp next to me on the table. Prove to me it is accelerating toward me. Prove to me any object on Earth is accelerating toward any other object without an outside actor. If I am near a massive mountain, I am not attracted to it because of gravity. It is there, and I am standing next to it. No, the only way you can make this claim is if you presuppose that there is a core underneath us of molten metal that has no magnetism because it is too hot but is somehow capable of overpowering the attraction the mountain would otherwise have. What you have is a story, a fiction. No experiment has shown that mass attracts other mass, and that is why Einstein had to create the concept of the bending of space-time to try feebly explain what you and everyone like you think of as gravity.
Incidentally, here is a quote from the alchmist Newton himself:
"But the reason of these properties of gravity I could never hitherto deduce from phenomena; AND AM UNWILLING TO FRAME HYPOTHESES ABOUT THEM."
And again space-time is a concept. You cannot bend a concept.
2) You do not know what science is. Science does not allow you to infer what is underneath you based on the ground shaking. X-rays allow us to see through a person's body. An earthquake does not allow us to see through the Earth. Stop making specious analogies. And deducing and inferring are philosophical actions one takes with information. They are not scientific. Here is science defined so that you can maybe consider not misusing it over and over:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".
Science is not inferring or deducing from observation based on your presuppositions. Sorry.
3) Your response to water seeking to fill its container in a level manner is to produce a single drop of water on a HYDROPHOBIC surface. This is as close to insane as one can get. The natural physics of water, not a single droplet on a specialized surfacem but water in lakes, rivers, oceans, cups, pots, etc., is to seek its level. That you think droplets of the substance on a HYDROPHOBIC surface demonstrate anything of relevance is shocking.
4) Appealing to something no one understands or can demonstrate (gravity) to keep air within the atmosphere without a container invalidates your argument. The laws of nature prove you wrong, and your magic unobservable force that is not really a force keeping air on Earth is faith-based. It is also directly contradictory to the Bible, which again and again declares that God created a firmament above us.
Your scientism is not science; it fails to stand up to basic rigor; it violates natural laws; it contradicts Sacred Scripture; it is based on presuppositions and is therefore invalidated on its face; it relies on cartoons and composite images and not experiment.
Ian,
DeleteYou are woefully ignorant of much. You are being pulled by the mountain, but it is dwarfed by the gravity of the Earth itself. If you were outside blowing on a ballon in winds of 50mph, the balloon would not respond to the force of your breath. How do we know electrons exist? We can’t see them but we can know of their existence based on studying the properties of electric discharge in cathode-ray tubes.
—-Introibo
You have not only presupposed gravity but also Earth's size. You are not in the realm of science but of religion. Earth does not have a magical force that is stronger than the magical force of the mountain. Sorry. No scientist today accepts this load of Newtonian crap anyway, so all you do when you parrot this line of fake science is demonstrate that you are parroting propaganda from the 1800s if not earlier. Einstein's claim of a concept bending to explain gravity was made precisely because real scientists knew Newton's magic force did not exist.
DeleteAnd yet again, we have a specious analogy. It is the same fallacy every post. You are engaged in pure obfuscation and are not interested in the truth or else you would not time after time try to shift the topic to something you think is similar to demonstrate your point. That is a rhetorical strategy that has nothing to do with science.
The strength of a tiny refrigerator magnet is stronger than your not actual magical force called gravity, friend. Consider that. Magnetism of even the slightest extent is more powerful than the pull of your space rock.
Ian,
DeleteYou assume much. I never saw “a cartoon in a science book”. I also don’t believe we evolved from “monkeys”. There are more atheists today as the population is greater.
JoAnn
Ian,
DeleteThe gravitational reaction between you and the mountain is overwhelmed by your mutual gravitational attraction with the Earth, as Introibo already mentioned. Furthermore, regarding your quote, Newton was unwilling to hypothesize the means by which gravity interacted with objects at a distance without some form of medium to act through, and he expressly left that investigation to others; his aim was in calculating the actual equations that corresponded with his observations and could be duplicated through repeated experiment. That he was unwilling to hypothesize about the exact source of the force behind his observations does not render the force itself untenable or unreal (and pulling this quote as though it were a valid rebuttal assumes physics research has frozen since the 17th century, which is a false assumption altogether).
However, given certain observations regarding objects interacting at a distance without any form of measurable transfer of information (such as with quantum entanglement), action at a distance does appear to be a possibility. Hence why our understanding of physics and physical forces are all undergoing continued refinement and research.
Also, spacetime is simply our three physical dimensions with time as the fourth dimension; that you cavalierly reduce this to a concept (and **only** a concept) with no practical or measurable applications speaks volumes.
Next: many people used to believe (through legend, folklore, myth, or speculation) that the Earth was completely hollow beneath the surface. This view was debunked based on seismological evidence, in light of observations of how waves of force moved or propagated through certain types of material (furthermore, your assertion that the first seismological observers presupposed the nature of the Earth's interior structure is an assumption lacking in evidence). If you don't consider seismology a science, that's not my problem.
In addition, you flatly said that "water always finds its level", and I gave a counterexample. That you consider such a counterexample "insane" is not my problem: if you don't want to be contradicted, be more precise in the future. Furthermore, what exactly is the force behind water "finding" its level, in your eyes? What is the mechanism? After all, water does not move of its own volition; footage of liquid water in space or low-gravity situations (such as on the "Vomit Comet" airplane) shows that it no longer "finds its level", as you assert it "always" does.
Lastly, simply because you as an individual cannot understand or observe gravity's effects does not automatically render all data and observations related to those effects (and thereby the arguments based on them) invalid. Your personal incredulity is not an argument.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Ian,
DeleteGravity is weaker than electromagnetic forces at small scales, but not at larger scales, elsewise we would not observe black holes (which exhibit gravitational force so strong that not even electromagnetic radiation can escape the event horizon). This scaling of gravity's strength relative to other forces is an area of active research.
However, blithely asserting that a magnet is able to counteract Earth's gravitational pull does not actually contradict the existence of gravity, as your facetious "pull of the magic space rock" comment asserts.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Ian,
Delete1. Please list the scientists who agree with you and your “evidence.” Please Supply their academic credentials as well as their peer-reviewed papers. You can’t because ALL OF THEM ARE PART OF THE GREAT CONSPIRACY!!!
2. To answer re:refrigerator magnet. Gravity is the weakest of forces which is why it needs so much mass.
Most magnets already have stronger attraction force to close iron objects than gravity. This is shown by their ability to hold these objects in the face of gravity. If magnets' magnetic forces were merely as strong as gravity's power of attraction, these would be easily dislodged, and fall to the ground.
—-Introibo
Simple Man,
DeleteYour answers, both scientifically and theologically, are so well reasoned and written, I wish I could hire you to answer some comments on days when I’m super-swamped at work!!
—-Introibo
Oh boy, out come appeal to authority fallacies. Nice one. Sadly, anyone who pays attention knows that peer review is now a massive scam thanks to cronyism, number and data-fudging, and over-reliance on government grants. If you have faith in such a system working in 2020 to determine valid science and research, you are beyond help.
DeleteMore gravity nonsense. Newtonian gravity does not exist, sorry. If it did, the sun with its massive size would compel the moon to orbit it in some manner. That the moon orbits the Earth in your model debunks your gravity. This was all well-known back in the 1800s. You are simply victims of the Beast system who think you can declare certain scientific claims to be true because the majority hold them. That is not how truth works. Natural law demands air is contained. Your fake force that no scientist accepts anymore does not cut it when you need to override natural law. Droplets of water on a unique surface do not allow you to claim that trillions of tons of water--unfathomable amounts--sticks to a space rock due to force know one has ever demonstrated or proven scientifically.
The house of cards tumbled down years ago. You are sadly living in an occult delusion wherein the reality of the world, a flat motionless plane, is hidden by an ever-increasingly bizarre series of conjectures and presuppositions that has become so ludicrous that "scientists" have to claim 70-90% of everything is unobservable dark matter and dark energy and that being off by 10 to the power 20 in their calculations is totally fine. But you obviously are not that up-to-date since you persist in rehashing 18th century tier gravity arguments and are not able to understand that a concept is not scientific, is not physical, and therefore cannot bend--among other laughable gaffes like posting nothing but cartoons and wikipedia-cited articles from one garbage website that you apparently have as your go-to for arguing in vain that you live on a spinning rock in a vacuum that water sticks to. If that is not an occult belief, nothing is. Oh, but you saw a cartoon of that space rock once, so obviously it is real.
Ian,
DeleteTRANSLATION: THERE ARE NO SCIENTISTS WITH ACADEMIC DEGREES WHO SUPPORT MY POSITION.
Therefore, I will attack the “establishment” which is Jewish-Masonic controlled. I will talk about Wikipedia because the knowledge is so general that it will show up anywhere. I used to teach this back in the 1980s. If you’d like me to back up my assertions on cosmology by real scientists with real degrees and peer reviewed experiments, I would be happy to do so.
Unfortunately, the world in which I live is the one with a blue sky and it might not apply in the Matrix in which you live.
Over and out,
—-Introibo
Ian,
DeleteGravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distances between two objects. Even though the Sun is more massive than the Earth, the closer proximity results in the Moon's orbit having Earth as its center rather than the Sun.
Practically everything you've been writing has been a stellar demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: you're so misinformed or mal-educated on certain topics that you can't even recognize the limits of your own incompetency. It's why you can say things like "your fake force that no scientist accepts anymore does not cut it when you need to override natural law" with a straight face.
In like manner, your level of projection is stellar, when you say "you are sadly living in an occult delusion wherein the reality of the world, a flat motionless plane, is hidden by an ever-increasingly bizarre series of conjectures and presuppositions", when maintaining a Flat Earth model of our world must needs be maintained by those same sorts of occult delusions, conjectures, and presuppositions to ignore all observational evidence to the contrary.
But, that being said, one's opinion as to Earth's physical structure doesn't really pertain to our eternal salvation (much less one's opinion on matters such as the Federal Reserve; seriously, there are far more important things in life than economic policy vis-a-vis the central banking system, unless your profession involves monetary policy in some way). I tend to stick with St. Augustine's opinion on such matters, from Book V of his Confessions:
xxxx
But yet who bade that Manichaeus write on [natural philosophy] also, skill in which was no element of piety? For Thou hast said to man, Behold piety and wisdom; of which he might be ignorant, though he had perfect knowledge of these things; but these things, since, knowing not, he most impudently dared to teach, he plainly could have no knowledge of piety. For it is vanity to make profession of these worldly things even when known; but confession to Thee is piety. Wherefore this wanderer to this end spake much of these things, that convicted by those who had truly learned them, it might be manifest what understanding he had in the other abstruser things. For he would not have himself meanly thought of, but went about to persuade men, "That the Holy Ghost, the Comforter and Enricher of Thy faithful ones, was with plenary authority personally within him." When then he was found out to have taught falsely of the heaven and stars, and of the motions of the sun and moon (although these things pertain not to the doctrine of religion), yet his sacrilegious presumption would become evident enough, seeing he delivered things which not only he knew not, but which were falsified, with so mad a vanity of pride, that he sought to ascribe them to himself, as to a divine person.
For when I hear any Christian brother ignorant of these things, and mistaken on them, I can patiently behold such a man holding his opinion; nor do I see that any ignorance as to the position or character of the corporeal creation can injure him, so long as he doth not believe any thing unworthy of Thee, O Lord, the Creator of all. But it doth injure him, if he imagine it to pertain to the form of the doctrine of piety, and will yet affirm that too stiffly whereof he is ignorant.
xxxx
In short: there are far more worthwhile things to spend your energy on than the shape of the Earth. And I shall do likewise.
Have a good evening, and may the Peace of Christ be with you.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Oh, just provide one valid scientific hypothesis in the field of astronomy. When an entire field is invalid and unscientific, it doesn't matter how many people you confer Phds to in said field: it still remains garbage.
DeleteAlmost all astronomy is is "interpreting" radio wave data.
Provide a valid hypothesis for an experiment with an independent and dependent variable(s), which is required for science to take place. What variables do astronomers manipulate?
Why is the sky blue, my friend? Oh right, because there are WATERS ABOVE as the Bible explicitly states and NASA implies. If you know where to look, you can find the evidence:
NASA admits water in fake space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5X8sB5slI&list=FLcFKNo-eE6V3uFJVOXwxmIA&index=44&t=1s
Ian,
DeleteA Simple Man is much more charitable than I am. I love my readers, but when someone comes on here spouting nonsense and wants people to believe it as some “Catholic teaching,” I get angry.
YouTube videos are “real science” and the sky is blue, not because of light refraction but because there is water above us. Yeah. Ok. Sure.
Have a Holy Lenten Season.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
What does "flat earth" have to do with the salvation of souls?
ReplyDelete@anon10:19
DeleteNothing. Only in warped minds does it matter.
—-Introibo
Because it allows people who are brainwashed into the Satanic atheist scheme of big bang cosmology, heliocentrism (but not really any more), and evolution to wake up. Then, with little effort, they can find out that these lies were created by Freemasons and Jews. Then, if they are an actual Catholic, they can reject these lies prima facie because an actual Catholic knows that Freemasons and Jews have always been the enemies of the Church. Period.
DeleteThe architect of the NO Mass was a Freemason, for goodness sake. That all the big name astronomers whose "work" your "model" of the universe is based on were Freemasons should cause any actual Catholic to recoil in horror. But people have seen too many space cartoons on their TVs to be able to perform such an obvious and correct decision: Freemasons are of the devil. Jews are of the devil. Nothing true comes out of either group. Any Catholic should know this. Sadly, even the supposedly awake Catholics who reject Vatican II cling to Freemasonic and Jewish fantasies. It is very sad. I wouldn't be surprised if this blog's author and the commenters here have no clue how evil the Federal Reserve is and who was behind it. And to them, Communism has nothing to do with Jews and their hatred of Christ and the "goyim". And they likely buy the Jewish media's fairy tale as to what 9/11 was. Very sad. All of it.
Ian,
DeleteJust where are all these Freemason's getting all this money and power to pull off a fake moon landing, fake round earth, etc., conspiracies? To what end do they hope to accomplish by doing such? I think you are giving way too much credit to the Freemason's and Satan. God said "the earth is my footstool"! He didn't say it was Satan's or his minions.
JoAnn
Introibo, have you ever read Walt Brown's book, "In the Beginning"? I'm not super learned in the sciences but a lot of it seems plausible, what are your thoughts on his theory?
DeleteIan,
DeleteWhat conspiracy is behind the Coronovirus?
Unknown,
DeleteBrown’s book is one of the best presentations of “young Earth creationism” (YEC) I’ve read. There are many good points and sound principles (e.g.life can only come from pre-existing life, there is no “spontaneous generation”). However, there are debunked points to which he also clings (e.g. moon dust layers). I do not subscribe to YEC, and I found his overall argument unpersuasive. However, YEC is not contrary to faith or morals. You may believe in it if you are so persuaded.
@anon11:09
I can’t wait to hear what Ian has to say about THAT!!!
—-Introibo
Joann,
DeleteIt is easily verifiable that the Apollo astronauts were all Freemasons. The ones you and I know of off the top of our heads are well-established to be Freemasons prior to "going" to the Moon. Here is a well-circulated collage of them openly displaying their Freemasonry:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L9JzXJ85da8/VGcITJeoJdI/AAAAAAAAOuc/MwEajtpDZB8/s1600/nasa-mason-signs.jpg
As I have stated multiple times, the goal of all this fakery is to hide God.
You wonder why more people don't see the truth of God and His Church? Well, because the modern cosmology and biology that everyone blindly accept are Satanic. The blog's author stating that Big Bang is evidence of God via a philosophical argument formulated by a well-known Protestant debater (funny how his knee-jerk reference was to William Lane Craig for a proof of God vis-a-vis the Big Bang) should raise a red flag for you. Why are we as Catholics relying on a non-Catholic's interpretation of the Big Bang and ignoring Genesis?
The issue is that Big Bang (ie, the Cosmic Egg) is Kabbalistic and not found in the Bible. It is therefore a superseding of Scripture to believe that God created this universe not as the Bible states but as the Zohar states, as a tiny "egg". In fact, the Big Bang cosmology clearly is an argument not for the God of the Bible but for the god of the deists--ie, the Freemasons. He is not the Creator as Genesis states but the "Great Architect" of the Freemasons.
Also, on a practical level, NASA receives hundreds of millions of dollars a day to engage in its Hollywood fakery. Our tax dollars support the lies.
And on a theological level, you are forgetting that after 40 days in the desert, Satan appeared to Jesus and took Him to the top of a mountain and told Him that all the kingdoms of the world could be His to rule if He merely bent the knee. Not only is this passage in the Gospels proof that Satan rules this world, but it is also proof that the Bible is not a book wherein the idea that we are stuck to the outside of a flaming rock found. How could Satan show Him all the kingdoms if they were standing on the outside of an oblate spheroidal rock?
Ian,
DeleteYou remind me of the “Lefebvre was invalidly ordained and consecrated because of Masonic bishops.” It is acknowledged by the Church that simply being a Mason does not invalidate the Sacraments or imply a positive contrary intention. Likewise, even if ALL the astronauts were Freemasons, it doesn’t follow they are giving false information.
My reference to philosopher Dr William Lane Craig was to show how modern science leads TO GOD NOT AWAY FROM HIM. True Catholic intellectual fire power has been lost in the Great Apostasy. The only respectable intellect the Vatican II sect has is Dr Edward Feser.
Pope Pius VII allowed for the publication of non-geocentric works in 1820. Was he part of the “Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy”? Guess he was promoting atheism.
The Miraculous Medal and the Holy Infant Jesus of Prague have the Earth depicted as a globe, thus getting people to believe in the atheistic fairy tale. Despite Church approval they were obviously of Jewish-Masonic origin.
Of course the Jews are behind the coronavirus. Just like they invented polio so that Jonas Salk could come up with a vaccination which has a Masonic potion in it to make people think the world is a globe and create atheists. Makes perfect sense.
God help us. I don’t sleep well at night knowing there are people who actually believe this craziness.
—-Introibo
As I said to others, prove that the "globe" depicted in iconography is one in which we are standing on its outside stuck to it due to a magical force an alchemist called gravity. You can't. There is no question with our magnetic pole (singular) that we are on a circular plane with a middle (polaris in the sky), but there is nothing in dogma or science that proclaims or proves that the circle is actually a rock in space that we are on the outside of.
DeleteI appreciate that you think I am unaware of what Donatism was, but sadly I am aware. Creating strawmen is never a good look, so please do not do that. I said nothing about the SSPX at any point. I did however mention the fact that the author of the NO Mass was a proven Mason. Have a big think about that one, please.
Comparing priests to Freemasonic "astronauts" is more than a bit troubling. I have noticed that you and others that comment here like to engage in specious analogies to attempt to make the case for your given position, but all it actually does is tell everyone that you have no argument. You are better off not comparing priests and astroNAUTS.
Also, yYou did not demonstrate how the big bang god is the God of the Bible. Follow the argument, please. The big bang god is the grand architect of Freemasonry not the living and true God who created the firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. You do all Christians a disservice when you loudly demand that Holy Scripture is simply metaphorical and poetic and must bend to myths and that we simply can ignore it so that we might positively assent to Freemasonic pseudoscience.
Oh, and the Polio "vaccine" was pushed after the disease's infection rate had plummeted. All vaccines were like that. So yes, Salk and his ilk are not heroes. How can they be? The Talmud teaches these monsters that the goyim are soulless cattle fit only to serve them. And if you bothered to look into the CDC and other government agencies and NGOs that push mandatory vaccination, you would--shockingly--discover a bunch of Jews. Just like when you look into the battle to legalize infanticide or allow queers to "marry" each other. Or pornography.
I feel nothing but pity for people like you who think you are on to something because you recognize the obvious charade of Vatican II and the NO sect yet fail to recognize any other obvious truth that the powers that be feebly attempt to mask via indoctrination--truths like 9/11, the Federal Reserve, communism, vaccination, fluoridation of our potable water, the poisoning of our food supply, etc.
Ian,
DeleteYou are the one who needs sympathy (and meds):
1. Why did Pope Pius VII allow non-geocentric books to be published? Was he a secret Masonic Jew and anti-pope? Didn’t he realize the truth as you know it? Why did the Holy Ghost fail to protect him?
2. The analogy to Lefebvre was lost on you (not surprisingly). Just because Freemasons are evil does not mean they cannot do good or tell the truth. Hence, valid ordinations and we have pictures from space.
Annibale Bugnini was also behind the Holy Week revision APPROVED BY POPE PIUS XII IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. The Church is infallible in universal disciplinary laws, such as the liturgy. Hence, the changes were not evil or erroneous despite being created by Bugnini.
Think about that one even harder.
3. Pope Pius XII praised the PRIEST who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Why would he do that? Didn’t the pope know the truth about the flat Earth and literal Genesis 1 ?
Why did Communists FORBID the teaching of the Big Bang Theory and insist on the Steady State Theory? The arguments of Aquinas don’t immediately point to the Christian God either. “Unmoved Mover,” etc. was Aquinas a Freemasonic Jew also??
—-Introibo
1) Provide specific books. You do not argue in good faith, so no one should assume that what you are saying is true without evidence.
Delete2) So the NO mass is valid, too? Why are you a sedevacantist, then? Enjoy your Freemasonic company. They have always been condemned, and appealing to the priestly faculties of a not-real Freemasonic priest you have concocted does not validate "photos" from space. You are obfuscating the issue because you seem to be afraid.
From A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=YBVTSJN4Y8E&feature=emb_title
It is fake. We know that. Pius XII did not. No Pope declared the fake space rock religious belief to be necessary for one to be Catholic. Now that we have all the evidence we need that such a belief is wrong, we can reject it and assent to biblical cosmology. The Bible > one Pope's praise of one (((Jesuit))).
3) The Unmoved Mover does not supersede Scripture in any way. More bad faith argumentation via specious analogies. The Unmoved Mover does not require denying Genesis like your false religious pseudo-scientific claim that God made and opened the cosmic egg. When you realize that everything in this universe requires a cause and that that cause is God, you do not void Genesis. You have created a philosophical argument for God's existence apart from revelation, which is why the Unmoved Mover was first presented by Aristotle. Meanwhile, declaring the cosmic egg was opened by God and out popped all the universe does contradict Genesis and revelation. If Pius XII was so convinced, why did he not declare that this "theory" was to be accepted by all Catholics and Genesis to be rejected lest we be heretics?
Try answering this:
Is Satan taking Jesus to the top of a mountain and showing Him all the kingdoms a metaphorical scene? Or were they both able to see around the curvature your fake space rock and see places like China and South America? What is more logical? That they were able to see across a flat plane or around a fake rock in a fake vacuum?
Ian,
DeleteIt's interesting that you mention Polaris: "There is no question with our magnetic pole (singular) that we are on a circular plane with a middle (polaris in the sky), but there is nothing in dogma or science that proclaims or proves that the circle is actually a rock in space that we are on the outside of."
Actually, observations of Polaris's position in the sky contradict the notion of Earth being a flat plane: https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle#more-3470
In addition, time-lapse panorama photographs from the Equator show that stars appear to rotate around a point in the Northern Hemisphere **and** around a point in the Southern Hemisphere. Since these time-lapse photos showing both celestial poles are only observer from locations around the Equator, this contradicts the notion of a Flat Earth (since, to give another example, your capacity to see the Big Dipper decreases the further south you go).
When you proclaim that there is nothing in science or dogma proving that Earth is a globe, all you demonstrate is that you freely choose to disregard or ignore evidence both for a globe Earth **and** against a Flat Earth.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteWhy are you referring to actual observations while providing nothing but a cartoon with two fake models? Please stop. The compass proves there is a magnetic "north" pole but not a "south" pole. Polaris is near that "north" pole. I did not say they are one and the same as I do not conflate what is on the earth with what is in the sky.
And to quote you: "time-lapse panorama photographs from the Equator show that stars appear to rotate around a point in the Northern Hemisphere". Welcome to our side, friend. The stars appear to rotate around Polaris.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/27/article-0-13CEDB33000005DC-491_964x633.jpg
We see the same stars in the same patterns night after night century after century. To suggest that their movement is due to our movement is to engage in religious-based belief and not science. To chart their movement and parallax as evidence of our movement through "space" is again fallacious. Planets mean wanderers literally because they are the only luminaries that do not follow a fixed path century after century. Regardless of where we are in your supposed universe, we see the same patterns season after season year after year. If you want to invoke Chronos to explain this phenomenon like your fake science requires, then you are a heathen.
Really, all this is only so much speculation. What you need to do is to prove your r value for Earth. Let's see that proof.
Ian,
Delete1. See “Annibale Bugnini Reformer of the Liturgy,” by Yves Chiron (2018), pgs. 37-49. See also the articles by Fr Cekada on traditionalmass.org where he freely admits Bugnini was behind the new Holy Week.
2. You mean the guy who knows the world is flat and can see through all the Great Conspiracy doesn’t understand? Pope Pius XII was a true pope and would be prevented by the Holy Ghost from promulgating anything contrary to faith and/or morals. Had Bugnini given him something evil, it (and Bugnini) would have been condemned.
The Novus Bogus was “promulgated” by MONTINI (Paul VI) who was a FALSE POPE and was NOT protected by the Holy Ghost! Get it?
Therefore, not everything Freemasons di is evil or wrong. Ditto for the “Masonic astronauts.”
3. So Pope Pius didn’t know that the Big Bang Theory was against the Faith? Neither did Pope Pius XI who allowed that Theory, and Pope Pius VII who allowed non-geocentrism. All got it wrong. But now Ian, with all the world’s scientists (you've yet to name ANY with academic credentials—but they are in on the Great Conspiracy) understand it better based on evidence that only a few (Gnostic) individuals understand.
4. The Kalam Cosmological Argument in its modern form, show a cause that must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial and a Mind of infinite power—that's God. It does not, in that form, conflict with Genesis. Why didn’t Pope Pius XII demand its assent? Because the Church takes Her time in making decisions. How long did it take for the Assumption to become dogma? He definitely did not believe it contradicted Genesis and ALLOWED IT TO BE TAUGHT. The approved theologians also teach a round Earth in space (e.g.Theologian Pohle).
Answer: Satan could show Christ in a vision without reference to physical sight.
—-Introibo
Ian,
Delete"Why are you referring to actual observations while providing nothing but a cartoon with two fake models? Please stop."
There's no need to be obtuse. It's a simplified representation of what has been observed, and the information is simply collated for ease of use. You seem to think that the use of models (or charts, or cartoons, etc) to explain phenomena is inherently wrong. There's no need for me to provide multiple photographs of Polaris from different parts of the world (even though I have seen photos to that effect) when a single image conveying the overall point will suffice.
"Welcome to our side, friend. The stars appear to rotate around Polaris."
You also apparently completely ignored my point (not just that, you cut if off!) about the same observations regarding stars rotating around a point in the *Southern* Hemisphere that is obviously *not* Polaris (the Southern Star currently being Sigma Octantis). If the Earth were flat, you would be able to observe both Polaris and Sigma Octantis from anywhere on Earth, but we can't.
You've basically validated my prior observation (in real time!) about ignoring or disregarding evidence that goes against your viewpoint.
"We see the same stars in the same patterns night after night century after century. To suggest that their movement is due to our movement is to engage in religious-based belief and not science. To chart their movement and parallax as evidence of our movement through "space" is again fallacious."
Alternatively, you presuppose that the Earth is flat and stationary at the center of the universe, interpret everything through that lens, and disregard anything that contradicts that viewpoint.
"Planets mean wanderers literally because they are the only luminaries that do not follow a fixed path century after century."
Counterexample: Barnard's Star.
"If you want to invoke Chronos to explain this phenomenon like your fake science requires, then you are a heathen."
???
I've never invoked or mentioned a literal personification of time. Also, invoking the passage of time in and of itself regarding why stars appear to move slowly (or seemingly not at all) to the naked eye (because they're so far away that any changes in relative position will take a long time to register to an observer on Earth) doesn't inherently make someone a heathen.
"Really, all this is only so much speculation. What you need to do is to prove your r value for Earth. Let's see that proof."
I don't have to. There's been more than enough evidence provided from the Apollo missions, space stations, probes, and satellites to validate that the Earth is a globe (if not necessarily a perfect sphere), notwithstanding the evidence already gathered on Earth that we're not living on a flat disc. That you reject this evidence a priori is not my problem; I don't have to indulge your arbitrary skepticism, nor am I obliged to satisfy it.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Also, one final point about the magnetic poles:
Delete"The compass proves there is a magnetic "north" pole but not a "south" pole."
This betrays a misunderstanding about how compasses work in relation to Earth's magnetic field. See here for a discussion elaborating on the topic: https://www.quora.com/If-Earth-is-a-sphere-why-dont-compass-needles-point-to-the-North-from-Sydney-or-Wellington-From-there-they-should-point-towards-the-ground-because-the-North-Pole-is-on-the-other-side
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Introibo,
DeleteThe Gospels do not say or even imply it was a "vision". Who are you to imply such an interpretation? Where is the Church Doctor or Father who said that? Why would He need to be taken to a mountaintop? Why do you reject the literal interpretation--on what grounds?
You also admit that the Church takes Her time to make decisions. Their passive allowance for the heliocentric myth has been for a relatively short period of time. Why do you insist on proclaiming acceptance of fake models where there is none? Why do you not accept that the Church, having made no decision, could potentially render one in the future with the perspective afforded by our position today, with the knowledge we now have? Or do you think there will never be another valid Pope?
A Simple Man,
Your references are Wikipedia and Quora. You have no knowledge of current mainstream science but parrot 18th and 19th century misconceptions (as does Introibo). It is best not to continue this discussion as you do not understand what your claim for gravity is. You do not understand the natural physics of water and use silly unique and minute scenarios to make spurious claims about water ALWAYS filling the container it is in. You want a droplet of water to convince people that oceans stick to a rock flying through space. That is the absurdity of your "logic" and "science". You do not understand apparent/angular size and think that anyone anywhere on Earth should be able to see everything in the sky, which is obviously absurd. You think all horizons are geometric when the literal definition of an horizon is that is APPARENT. It is not geometric. It is not real. It moves based on certain conditions and optics used, and we can see too far for your supposed r-based oblate spheroid rock. But instead of dealing with such a reality--that we can use cameras to see over 10 miles into the distance from a foot elevation, for instance--you want to appeal to composite images and cartoons of the Earth from "space". You do not even have a photograph of a satellite. All cartoons. Satellites are actually sateloons, and NASA and others admit this. You can do some basic research and find out they are the #1 user of helium in the world and has the largest reserve of it. This is your satellite:
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/future-space-science-depends-balloons/
Really, you are out of your depth. You refer to Wikipedia or Quora for tired, long ago debunked nonsense.
The Earth is not a space rock, sorry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_cTrRk2JRo
Ian,
DeleteFor someone who disdains "appeals to authority", you sure seem to rely upon Nathan Oakley a lot. Who, by the way, has a rather famous YouTube video of him demonstrating an inability to convert meters to kilometers (and this is the guy you reference to give people the straight talk on perspective and size and whatnot). Just saying.
But really, based on this entire discussion thus far, nothing anyone here says that's contrary to your opinion will convince you, so I'm not going to bother anymore.
Have a blessed Lent.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Ian,
DeleteYou are an idiot. (There is no polite way to say it). You did not know Bugnini was behind Holy Week and the difference between promulgation by a REAL pope versus a false one. You REJECT the teaching of the approved theologians. That’s why you are ignorant of the interpretation of the Bible.
According to Theologian Haydock commenting on St Matthew’s Gospel 4:8, he teaches, “We cannot comprehend how this can be done from any mountain OR SEEN WITH THE HUMAN EYES. THEREFORE, MANY [theologians] THINK IT WAS BY SOME KIND OF REPRESENTATION; OR THE DEVIL SHOWING A PART, AND BY WORDS SET FORTH THE REST” (See “The New Testament with a Comprehensive Commentary” [1859], pg. 1253; Emphasis mine). Haydock was praised by Pope Pius IX and all his works approved by the Magisterium. But..but...WAIT!! Pope Pius IX, Theologian Haydock and the others were ALL FREEMASONIC JEWS AND PART OF THE GREAT CONSPIRACY!!!!
You lack theological knowledge, as I have PROVEN. You are not a theologian or canonist and your mentally challenged “science” only requires Quora or Wikipedia sources As a defeater because it is common knowledge. If you want peer reviewed articles let me know—but it’s part of the GREAT CONSPIRACY.
You couldn’t get a job teaching science because your knowledge there is as poor as your theology. You are neither scientist nor theologian. YOU ARE OVER YOUR HEAD. Don’t criticize Simple Man or me for your lack of common sense and ignorance.
Those meds are calling your name, “Ian let us help you!”
—-Introibo
What are the days of partial abstinence during lent?
ReplyDeleteEvery day except friday and ash Wednesday if I'm not mistaken
DeletePoni,
DeleteNeyoriquans is correct!
—-Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteAre there any age restrictions for fasting during Lent?
@anon4:00
DeleteFasting does not apply to anyone under the age of seven or past their 60th birthday.
—-Introibo
Actually, the law pertaining to fasting applies to persons between the ages of twenty-one and fifty-nine. Those who are seven and over are obliged by the law of abstinence. Very informative and helpful article, by the way!
DeleteLeo,
DeleteYou are correct, but so was my response (unless I’m missing something). Those under age 7 and 60+ are not bound to fast. (Just like you stated—applies to persons between the ages of 21 and 59.) Seven and older must abstain.
Thank you for the kind words my friend!
—-Introibo
Leo,
DeleteJust saw my gaffe! I should have wrote under the age of TWENTY-ONE. My problem when I’m multitasking at work!! Thank you for pointing it out: Fasting does not apply to those under the age of 21 and those 60+
I promise not to answer any questions while doing something else!
Thanks Leo!
—-Introibo
Thank you all.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo, I have repeatedley been appalled at how rude and condescending you are in your words, to anyone who dares disagree with you. They may disagree in a polite way, even calling you 'friend' to show they are not attacking you (like Ian above), and you immediately become rude and disrespectful. Where is your humility, your charity, your ability to engage in a discussion based on fact and truth without being condescending and making comments that the person daring to disagree with you is on medication? Nasty. You act no differently in this to the rabid left. I am done with this website.
ReplyDelete@anon3:01
DeleteWhat I believe is necessary in cases like Ian is to protect my readers from thinking something must be believed, when it does not. If you want to believe the Earth is flat, you may certainly do so. However, to transform it into a “matter of faith” and call into question the faith of those who reject such lunacy is another matter.
Yes, the “flat Earth” is LUNACY that flies in the face of both science (as amply demonstrated by Simple Man) and theology. I have been more than charitable with Ian who comes on here from time to time for the purpose of declaring his “Flat Earth Dogma.”
You can’t reason with such a person because whatever you say is part of the “Great Conspiracy.” I allowed his comments, and just like in previous posts, he is adamant that everything we think is real is part of a conspiracy. To suggest such a person is paranoid and needs (or should be on) medication, is not really sarcastic but sincere.
Unlike $teve $kojec and others, I do not make a single cent off this blog. I feel called to do this by God, with all glory to Him. How many readers I have doesn’t matter. I therefore do as I feel best; how many readers I gain or loose is never a consideration. If only one soul reads this blog and is one day saved, that makes it all worthwhile.
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI would say the majority of your readers like you just the way you are. Please ignore the likes of Anon @3:01 and please don't go changing!
@anon6:09
DeleteThank you my friend!
—-Introibo
The absolute most pernicious thing you can say to someone you disagree with is "you need to be on meds to pollute and control your mind". You realize a huge part of the problem today is that the majority of the population at this point is on some sort of mind-altering "medication"? Putting boys being normally rambunctious on Ritalin because their terrible teachers and horrible parents are dreadful human beings is one of the worst evils of modernity. But I am sure you, a huge fan of the tyranny of experts, think that because someone with a piece of paper wrote a prescription for the Ritalin, it is fine to drug all those young boys and permanently damage their brains.
DeleteAbsolutely despicable.
Ian,
Delete1. As a former middle school science teacher here in NYC, I never condoned the wholesale giving medication to children at the drop of a hat.
2. I have remained in contact with several of my students and their families. The first group of students I taught are now 44 years old. There was one who couldn’t control his outbursts and his grades were in the toilet. This is not “being rambunctious.” I had a conference with his parents and he was put on meds. The result? He controlled his behavior, concentrated, and he became a model
student with an average of 94%.
He got a scholarship to New York University where he majored in business and continued on to get an MBA. Today, at 44, he is married with 6 kids, and works on Wall Street earning $700,000 per year.
To this day he, and his parents, thank me for convincing them to place him on medication.
If you think that is “despicable,” there’s yet another problem you have to address.
—-Introibo
An anecdote of doping up a child so that he could chase mammon. You are demonstrating for anyone who reads this blog that you are no true follower of Christ, my friend.
DeleteBut I am glad you can pat yourself on the back for having a young child's brain chemistry unnaturally altered so that he could be more complacent and receptive to your indoctrination.
Ian,
Delete“Chase mammon.” Wealth is not per se evil, nor condemned by the Church; he donates to many charities. He was headed no where and getting there fast. By his own admission he would have probably dropped out of school and gotten on drugs (the bad kind, as in cocaine, heroin, etc). He takes no drugs at all today.
“My indoctrination.” Yes, I'm a secret Masonic Jew plotting world domination.
You are demonstrating you are in desperate need of professional help, and I’m not being sarcastic. Thank you for showing my readers the danger of the “Great Conspiracy” thinking.
—-Introibo
Ian,
DeleteHave you ever been employed by a poor person? I haven’t. My employers have all been wealthy or they couldn’t have paid my wage. Money is not evil. It is the “love of money” that is prohibited. You need to get REAL!!
Also, why are you judging someone you don’t even know as “chasing mammon”? Sounds hypocritical to me.
JoAnn
Ian,
DeleteI asked the following question previously and you ignored it:
"By the way are you against medicine and Drs., as alot of Drs. and medical researchers are Jewish? Do you go to a Dr. or take medicine that may have came from Freemason's or Jews?"
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteGreat response re: being hired by the poor!!
—-Introibo
Ian,
DeleteDo you verify that any Dr. you go to is not a Protestant Freemason? How about an Islamic Dr.? More than likely you would go to an Islamic Dr. instead of a Freemason or Jew? How about a Novus Ordo Dr.?
Ian, maybe you do not need meds. But you need to stop commenting here, for you are sewing discord. Nobody is going to hell for not believing the moon is flat for example. You can be a Catholic and have NO IDEA of satanists, masons and everything in between.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like me when i tried to convert an agnostic friend by telling him his rockstars were satanic. What does this have to do with the existence of God and His Church? I told him that the members of the so called 27 club were all satanic because 9+9+9=27. This things do not get people into the Church, they throw them away. In charity, please, have a break and think in better ways of using your time.
Poni,
DeleteYou give wise advice my friend!
—-Introibo
Biblical cosmology is not related to Gematria. Why do people keep insisting on comparing unlike things? If you can make someone understand they are not a randomly evolved monkey stuck to a space rock due to a magical force, you can break the spell the world has entrapped them within. You are apparently looking at extreme minutiae to proselytize while I am talking about the biggest picture of all. How can you even think to compare the two?
DeleteAnd "better ways of using my time"? Sharing the glory of creation with people is one of the best uses of my time I can think of. Why do random people on the internet insist on giving unasked-for advice to people they do not know?
Here is a good recent video. Watch with eyes to see, my friend.