[ThirdMil] Jabriol finally killed someone <truthSeeker>
Adam Marczyk
questioned the wisdom of banning Jabriol from x-posting to rape and
depression support groups, read what follows. I have no words to describe
it.
Jabriol <jab...@speaker4thedead.org> wrote in message
news:3b423...@excalibur.gbmtech.net...
> uh. susan, are you sure I killed somebody. the mail I posted on ASP was
on
> june 2000, Chris killed himself on novemeber. between June and Novemeber,
> there were hundreds of letters, including those
> reporting Chris to the administration of Mindspring about his suicidal
> tendencies. Cynthia Du Bose, has not in any shape or form accuse me or my
> e-mail as the sole cause of "truthseeker" demise. It is apparrent that
she
> knows the cause of her son death. Her letter simply state that was letter
> on ASAP was not supportive of her son condition. She has the right to make
> that claim, I have the right to refute that claim and disagree. If anyone
> here per Ms Du Bose letter have evidence of a crime being committed, they
> are free to report to the authorities. I reserve the right to sue any
party,
> who will continue to accuse me directly of any crime, without evidence of
> such.
>
> I monitored creationevolve newsgroup, and I read all the comments on this
> matter. And Susan you are the only one who has directly accuse me of
killing
> Ms. Du Bose son. Therefore I ask you and I ask Ms Du bose, do you have any
> evidence That I am directly responsible for the death of Ms Du Bose son,
who
> went by the screenname "truthseeker". If you do not have any I expect a
full
> retraction of your statement as indicated in the header, and may Sue you
for
> slander and Libel.
> You may be also be investigated by Yahoo administration, since you are the
> moderator of one of their (not yours) cyber communitties. I doubt that
> Yahoo will accept the fact that your e-mail may considered as Harrasement
> and you are using their facilities in doing so. It is one thing to make an
> Hypothesis, It is quite another to accuse directly somebody for a crime,
> without Evidence.
>
> Ms Du Bose,
>
> The lost life of any individual is a sad loss. However You must recognize
> that what your son was about to do last november was self evident. It is
> quite easy to pass the blame of a suicidal victim to another source, and
try
> to determine that maybe, just maybe if Your son did not read any of my
posts
> on usenet he would be alive today. So the question remains was any of my
> posting on usenet was directly responsable for your son death? five month
> after he read them? Or did he have an already existing dilema with mental
> illness. And could it be possible, that if your son was not allowed to
read
> anything on Usenet, would he be alive today? And if the answer is yes, why
> was a person who was a danger to himself allowed to have such access?
>
> These questions may cause you some emotional pain, But the direct
> accusation in front of hundreds of individual that I have indeed killed
your
> son must not be left unasnwered. I will happily turn myself over to the
> authority and await prosecution. If I am not. You owe the creationevolve
> group another Letter. A real attorney unlike , those on 2debate would
> deemed that your e-mail was to have other do for you, what legally you can
> not do yourself.
>
> with regards and respect.
>
> Jabriol
>
>
>
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 17:10:50 -0000 susan-br...@ou.edu writes:
> > This was posted on another list:
> >
> > In June of 2000 my son (Truthseeker) made a post having to do with a
> >
> > friend of his whom he thought wanted him to kill himself. I can't
> > find the original post, but someone named Antonio made the following
> >
> > reply:
> >
> > ***********
> > On 1-Jun-2000, unknown@u... (Truthseeker) wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure why, but Sepideh seriously wants me to kill myself,
> > and has
> > > not
> > > only told me to please kill myself, but has blocked me from her
> > email, has
> > > put
> > > me on permanent ignore on her ICQ, and has killfiled me from
> > newsgroups.
> > > And I
> > > don't even know exactly why. In other words, she's completely
> > abandoned
> > > me like
> > > everybody else and wishes I would stop existing on the face of the
> >
> > earth.
> >
> > From Jabriol aka Antonio Santana
> >
> > Do not feel Bad, You see, her evolutionary instincts as indicated
> > you
> > as not a good canditate for the human species. If you belive in
> > the
> > theory
> > of evolution, then you belive that your desire to kill yourself is
> > purely
> > normal.
> >
> > The director of natural selection Mr. Chance may have directed your
> >
> > innard to blow away yourself in some sort of violent act. This is
> > not
> > your
> > fault since human emotions and behaviour is just another mere
> > Mechanism
> > to enhace survival of the species. I do not seriously belive that
> > anyone one wants you to kill yourself. Howevewer Natural selection
> > may want you
> > to to do so for the good of humanity. I personaly do not subscribe
> > to
> > evolution as the origin of man. And I do fight my self destructive
> > ways.. However
> > if you do belive in evolution, and that man is here, but gone
> > tomorrow... then follow your
> > instincts.. go in style, make the headline, like those columbine
> > high
> > kids did. But
> > if you belive you are much more than the product of two human to
> > satify
> > nature need to procreate. there is a better way..
> >
> >
> > Read the Bible.
> > ***********
> >
> > Well, I just want this asshole Antonio to know that my son did kill
> >
> > himself. This took place in November of last year.
> >
> > I am not blaming anyone here, but I cannot imagine that responses of
> >
> > this nature were of any help to my son. I just want to say this:
> > You all might be having more effect than you think. Life is not an
> >
> > intellectual discussion. It is real. Try to put your heart into
> > your responses as well as your head.
> >
> > Here's my memorial web page to my son:
> > http://chris.dubose-design.com.
> > ******************
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Generic454381810
Another good fundy doing the lards work, spreading meaness and spite across the
world for jesus and Big Poppa (TM). Amen.
dkomo
>
> Apologies for the cross-post, but t.o. needs to see this. If anyone ever
> questioned the wisdom of banning Jabriol from x-posting to rape and
> depression support groups, read what follows. I have no words to describe
> it.
>
> Jabriol <jab...@speaker4thedead.org> wrote in message
> news:3b423...@excalibur.gbmtech.net...
> > uh. susan, are you sure I killed somebody. the mail I posted on ASP was
> on
> > june 2000, Chris killed himself on novemeber. between June and Novemeber,
> > there were hundreds of letters, including those
> > reporting Chris to the administration of Mindspring about his suicidal
> > tendencies. Cynthia Du Bose, has not in any shape or form accuse me or my
> > e-mail as the sole cause of "truthseeker" demise.
If evolution was as insidious a force as the Jabber Monkey thinks it
is, it would have canceled him out a long time ago. Misfits like him
usually don't last too long. In any case, Jabberwocky will receive
everything that is due him in the afterlife, as I'm sure he is well
aware.
Bored With The Boring Again
I'd like to see it all catch up with him in -this- life.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
---
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
Jabriol
groups, then it time to have the support groups removed from usenet.
Keep in mind that our ancestor threw mentally unbalnced people to the
lions and wolves to keep their tribes pure.. today, well we will just
have to loclen up and threw away the key.
Or you can follow the Tallyman directive, he was legally allowed to
kill his mentally ill brother. and thus removing him from the gene
pool, just as evolution teaches children to do.
"Tweetienerd" <killorb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9hth0r$epq$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
> I hold Jabriol responsible for at least aggravated depression in many people
> in the support-groups, especially the younger ones... Saying more would be
> inappropriate, even towards an utter moron as Jabriol, but I certainly
> don't rule it out......
>
> "<.~-{@(..)@}-~.>" <unpaid-...@theWTbusiness.net> wrote in message
> news:ptr07.20195$Lk6.1...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > Jabriol <jab...@speaker4thedead.org> wrote in message
> > news:3b423...@excalibur.gbmtech.net...
> > > uh. susan, are you sure I killed somebody... SNIP
> >
> > ==================
> > I bet you're real proud of yourself now Jabbers. Patting yourself on the
> > back over what you did? I bet it gave you the thrill of a lifetime to
> know
> > this person killed him/herself *after* reading your toxic trash on the
> > support NGs. I mean, after all they weren't another Jehovah's Witness so
> > their life didn't count to you. Now you can bore everyone to death for
> > months on how "evolution" killed this unfortunate person. May your soul
> > NEVER rest in peace.
> > --
> > KabKlash...
> > I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer
> > god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods,
> > then you will understand why I dismiss yours.
> > -Stephen F. Frost-
> > -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
> >
> >
> >
> >
Total Loser
>
> If there are unblanced and mentally defective people in the support
> groups, then it time to have the support groups removed from usenet.
>
śWithdraw thy foot from thy neighbour's house; lest he be weary of thee, and
so hate thee.
toto
>Keep in mind that our ancestor threw mentally unbalnced people to the
>lions and wolves to keep their tribes pure.. today, well we will just
>have to loclen up and threw away the key.
I take it that means someone is going to get you locked up for good,
Jabs? Please delete asdt and asd from these headers when answering
anything Jabbers posts.
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown
Pat James
(in message <9i59ka$gfnvr$1...@ID-70710.news.dfncis.de>):
There ain't no use quoting scripture to Jabs, he ain't a Xian and he's proud
of it.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Terry (AntiWT)
"Total Loser" <resol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9i59ka$gfnvr$1...@ID-70710.news.dfncis.de...
> "Jabriol" <jabri...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > If there are unblanced and mentally defective people in the support
> > groups, then it time to have the support groups removed from usenet.
> >
> Proverbs 25:17
and
> so hate thee.
>
>
I wonder it he understands what support is and why there are groups to give
it. Seems his idea of support is what I would call harassment.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
Louann Miller
>> >
>> > If there are unblanced and mentally defective people in the support
>> > groups, then it time to have the support groups removed from usenet.
>> >
>> Proverbs 25:17
>and >> so hate thee.
>I wonder it he understands what support is and why there are groups to give
>it. Seems his idea of support is what I would call harassment.
Jabs is just plain evil; he gets off on doing this stuff. Always has.
There's a minor chance that he (unlike everyone who has ever read his
usenet posts) may not be able to identify himself as evil. But I'd
hate to put money on it.
Tweetienerd
the gene pole will the be totally approved of by those laws of evolution,
which, btw, you seem to have personalised into some gods that are
exclusively there to serve your totally retarded views and purposes...
"Jabriol" <jabri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2928e70.01070...@posting.google.com...
Jabriol
> On 6 Jul 2001 16:58:50 -0400, jabri...@yahoo.com (Jabriol) wrote:
>
> >Keep in mind that our ancestor threw mentally unbalnced people to the
> >lions and wolves to keep their tribes pure.. today, well we will just
> >have to loclen up and threw away the key.
>
> I take it that means someone is going to get you locked up for good,
> Jabs?
sure.. you and what army.. I wonder what gene allows you to put you
head on a railroad track?
Jabriol
> Just remove yourself from the Usnet and things will be back to normal again,
>
> >
Not gonna happen.. until Cynthia correct the problem she started on
creationevolve@yahoogroup... she pick the wrong person to pin the
blame on.
I am now writing a reality fact on how chris died.. straight from her
webpage..
she make it sound like suicide is pretty..
she did not describe Chris last moment in detail.. you know the part
wher Chris head get servered an blood gushes out thru the cavitiy of
his neck. She failed to tell us exactly where did they find his
head.. after close examination I think I can figure it out using
evolutionary mathematics..
now then I can stop here.. unless cynthia return to creation evolve
and have her friends retract their direct accusation that I killed her
son..
So Cynthia.. this is asupport group.. let see you support adult
accountability and take personal responsability for action..
by the way.. was it a closed casket funeral, or was his head sewed
back on?
return to creationevolve and correct your mistake.
( I have nightmare enverynight, when i hear the train pass by house..
I see everynight a young man throw his wallet and his car key into the
trunk, and I feel the vibration of the ground as th train gets
closer..thanks to Cynthia)
Total Loser
>
> There ain't no use quoting scripture to Jabs, he ain't a Xian and he's proud
of it.
>
convert him. I merely felt like that particular proverb applied very well to
the situation.
Generic454381810
jabri...@yahoo.com (Jabriol) attempted to communicate...
wtf is evolutionary mathmatics? I thought fundies liked math and statistics?
Now they're evil too? Its so hard to keep up with the latest heresies.
btw, you are one sick, twisted shit.
Nates
a gun to their head and you did not pull the trigger. You comments to this
person however were far from supportive, which is strange considering the
intended function of this newsgroup.
You then have the audacity to insist it is not your problem, and that
"unbalanced and mentally defective people" should not be a part of support
groups like this. As someone who has suffered depression since I was a boy,
I suppose I am one of those defectives you want out of here. It took me a
long time to admit I have a problem, and even longer to seek help and accept
it. Reading the comments in this group have helped me realise I am not
alone, and that there are many with me fighting this fight.
Suicidal tendencies are an unfortunate consequence of some peoples severe
depression. As someone who has been there before you need all the help love
and support you can get to save you, not ridicule and abuse and approval of
such beliefs.
I do thank you for one thing though. For the most part I am still ashamed
of the depression I suffer, but reading your comments has indirectly helped
me. It gave me the courage to write about it here for the first time, and
it made me realise just how small those you ridicule me/us are.
To everyone else, thanks for your many conversations. Reading how you all
cope helps me more than you can know.
"Jabriol" <jabri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2928e70.01070...@posting.google.com...
Jabriol
> Tinks <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b46b5e9...@news.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Blackmail suits your cowardly character, Jabby. You get more
> > repulsive with each post. You're basically a toad at this point.
> =========================
> He's probably sweating a LAW SUIT for wrongful death. I hope the woman sues
> him for all he has. Maybe that'll get him off Usenet and stop the damage he
> so happily does to people here. You can be sure he also fears his cong
> finding out what he's doing here again,..... however they may not care since
> he attacks non JWs.
Pleae explain to us almighty Lawyer, how can I be sued for wrongful death?
death by e-mail?
Luke
> If there are unblanced and mentally defective people in the support
> groups, then it time to have the support groups removed from usenet.
> Keep in mind that our ancestor threw mentally unbalnced people to the
> lions and wolves to keep their tribes pure.. today, well we will just
> have to loclen up and threw away the key.
> Or you can follow the Tallyman directive, he was legally allowed to
> kill his mentally ill brother. and thus removing him from the gene
> pool, just as evolution teaches children to do.
Dude, in those days people believed the goddamn earth was
flat. It's not relevant in any way shape or form to modern society.
Now from what I understand, you've been pestering some guy
called Chris when he just _really_ didn't need to be hearing from
you. Whilst he may not have killed himself as a direct result of
your communication with him, I have $10,000 that says it didn't
exactly help him. You appear to be trying to shuck off any blame
whatsoever. Have you no remorse? You've said it was a truly
tragic thing to happen, the loss of a life, but you seem so cold
and mechanical about stating it. Can you even acknowledge that
what you are doing is wrong? That you perhaps should have left
him alone? Or do you feel that you were actually trying to help
him? is that how you feel?
I think Jehovah's Witness's really need to stop shoving their
religion down other peoples' throats. You need to obey the
rule of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Sure, go believe whatever you feel comfortable believing, but
don't try to push your beliefs onto anyone else.
-L-
Wade Hines
Luke wrote:
>
> Jabriol:
> Dude, in those days people believed the goddamn earth was
> flat. It's not relevant in any way shape or form to modern society.
Who believed the Earth was flat? Certainly comparatively few
educated persons have believed this in the last 2000 years or so.
John Wilkins
Jabriol is on a crusade. Like all crusades, the end justifies any means
at all, including the overriding of people's rights, good taste, or
common decency.
His crusade consists of making as many people as possible depressed by
what he knowingly falsely claims are the moral implications of the facts
of evolutionary biology. In this way he thinks that people will evade
and ignore the facts, or that somehow wanting to believe things are
different than they are on moral grounds is enough to make them
different.
Of course, evolution does not imply any of the things he says it does.
This has been known for a very long time, and Jabriol has been informed
of this in detail. It makes no difference. So what if he drives a few
depressed people over the brink to suicide or self-harm? So long as he
can self-justify that he is doing God's work in his little world of
delusion.
For those who are perhaps wondering what the *real* moral lesson to be
drawn from evolution is, the answer is: precisely none. It doesn't
matter to morality whether the world is tough because of the Fall, or
tough because of competition, or tough because Ormuzd and Ahriman are
battling it out. The world is tough, and any moral system has to provide
ways to behave in that situation.
Lessons from evolution depend a lot on what you already think is right.
If you already think that competition is a good thing, then you will no
doubt find a might-is-right philosophy in biology. If, as I do, you
think that the basis of all morality is providing for and protecting
yours and others' children, then you will find plenty of reasons and
lessons for that. If you think that morality is something you invent,
then you can find that too.
In other words, choose moral rules on the grounds that seem proper to
you, but don't blame evolution, or indeed any scientific theory, if you
find it hard to apply those rules.
Aron-Ra
"Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3B6A217A...@rcn.com...
Sailors and seafarers clearly did not believe that. But most people living
away from the sea did believe that back then. I've actually met
geocentrists even in this century! And a few (like dpwozney) who deny that
dinosaurs ever existed! The leader of the American Flat-Earth society just
died a year or so ago, but his following lives on. And it has been around
since Biblical times. Read the Bible again. They certainly thought the
Earth was flat. To them, the Earth was merely a single mass of land
floating on an eternal sea. In fact, there are a few Muslims in that region
today who still believe the Earth is flat.
Aron-Ra
John R. Owens
You would think he'd have figured out that, if we were really as
amoral/immoral and unethical as he makes us out to be, he wouldn't be
wasting oxygen and bandwidth anymore.
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Tom
<1Ipa7.603$xY6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
Geocentrism is different from belief in a flat earth.
As far as how wide-spread belief in a flat earth was among people
who lived far from the sea, I don't know. I suppose that most
people didn't care. However, in medieval Europe, many kings carried,
as part of their regalia (or symbols of power), an "orb" (also called
a "mound"), which was a golden sphere topped with a cross, the
sphere representing the spherical earth. Dante's "Divine Comedy"
is based upon the concept of a spherical earth (with Hell at the
center of the earth).
I would appreciate it if you would have some way of finding out
just how widespread a belief in a flat earth was.
As far as a belief in a spherical earth today, I suppose that
most people believe that, not because of any thought about it, but
just because they know that they'd be laughed at to believe in a
flat earth. Ask somebody sometime why they believe that the earth
is round.
Tom
altheim
"Luke" <vag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jabriol:
> > If there are unblanced and mentally defective people in the support
> > groups, then it time to have the support groups removed from usenet.
> > Keep in mind that our ancestor threw mentally unbalnced people to the
> > lions and wolves to keep their tribes pure.. today, well we will just
> > have to loclen up and threw away the key.
> > Or you can follow the Tallyman directive, he was legally allowed to
> > kill his mentally ill brother. and thus removing him from the gene
> > pool, just as evolution teaches children to do.
>
> Dude, in those days people believed the goddamn earth was
> flat. It's not relevant in any way shape or form to modern society.
>
to modern society. But let's face it, maybe it is modern society
that is wrong. Hitler, among his many fine attributes, also
believed in the health of society (of mankind (Der Mensch)
actually) and that it was in the interest of our children and our
childrens' children to put our health, especially our *genetic*
health above other considerations. Hitler would almost
certainly have thrown fruitcakes, poufs and other genetic
screwballs to the lions as being a simple and effective way
of cleaning up the gene pool.
OK he preferred gas chambers.
[...]
> I think Jehovah's Witness's really need to stop shoving their
> religion down other peoples' throats. You need to obey the
> rule of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
> Sure, go believe whatever you feel comfortable believing, but
> don't try to push your beliefs onto anyone else.
To be fair, I see a lot of non-JWs here who do precisely that
including you. I won't say that you are doing any wrong but
suggest that these Usenet groups are the place to exchange
viewpoints. I.e if you read something you disagree with you
challenge it, debate it, overcome it with logical argument
(if you can) - not order the other guy to keep silent just
because you have run out of arguments.
--
altheim
Pat James
(in message <3b6a390f$0$12830$272e...@news.execpc.com>):
>> In other words, choose moral rules on the grounds that seem proper to
>> you, but don't blame evolution, or indeed any scientific theory, if you
>> find it hard to apply those rules.
>
> You would think he'd have figured out that, if we were really as
> amoral/immoral and unethical as he makes us out to be, he wouldn't be
> wasting oxygen and bandwidth anymore.
jabs ain't that smart.
John R. Owens
>
> "Luke" <vag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> [...]
> > I think Jehovah's Witness's really need to stop shoving their
> > religion down other peoples' throats. You need to obey the
> > rule of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
> > Sure, go believe whatever you feel comfortable believing, but
> > don't try to push your beliefs onto anyone else.
>
> To be fair, I see a lot of non-JWs here who do precisely that
> including you. I won't say that you are doing any wrong but
> suggest that these Usenet groups are the place to exchange
> viewpoints. I.e if you read something you disagree with you
> challenge it, debate it, overcome it with logical argument
> (if you can) - not order the other guy to keep silent just
> because you have run out of arguments.
>
> --
> altheim
I don't know exactly what Luke had in mind, but it sounds to me more
like he meant their activities outside the newsgroups, the door-to-door,
trying to get creationism into the curriculum, etc. That's more like
"shoving their religion down other people's throats".
Tweetiebird
"John R. Owens" <j.o...@core.com> schreef in bericht
news:3b6ab2f7$0$18891$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> altheim wrote:
> >
>
> I don't know exactly what Luke had in mind, but it sounds to me more
> like he meant their activities outside the newsgroups, the door-to-door,
> trying to get creationism into the curriculum, etc. That's more like
> "shoving their religion down other people's throats".
go on a crusade and simply kill peeps from other cults... I regularly have
Jehovah-witnesses at my door: some of them I simply restricted any more
passing by, others are real friendly and as soon as I stated clearly I was
not going to joing the Jehovahs, never ever, we went on to quite a nice
conversation, these people telling of the harassments and discrimination
they had to suffer often... Any has an absolute right to believe what s/he
feels related to... And members of the most diverse cults could get along
real fine once we all agree that God goes by many names...
Side notice: if a God exists, he's there to stay, no matter what you
believe... If He doesn't, well, let's just allow peeps to believe in Him
anyways, if it gets them through the shit we all have to deal with during
our life-time....
Bless all and let's get along...
Dominique
Louann Miller
>Just my 0.02 experience worth: in any cult you have the fanatics, ready to
>go on a crusade and simply kill peeps from other cults...
<joke>
Clarity would help here ... do you mean the little pastel marshmallow
chicks they sell around Easter, or do you mean citizens of the
People's Republic of Haven?
</joke>
Aron-Ra
"Tom" <Tom_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9ke8o...@drn.newsguy.com...
I realize that of course. I listed that (along with dpwozney's denial of
dinosaurs) to illustrate how people will vary from accepted science, (even
after they have been taught otherwise) in favor of their cherished fables.
> As far as how wide-spread belief in a flat earth was among people
> who lived far from the sea, I don't know. I suppose that most
> people didn't care.
Apathy continues to be a problem today. You would be amazed at how stupid
the common man is. Watch Street Smarts sometime. Or just watch the news.
Or listen to an interview with "Dubya". There's no accounting for common
sense in this world. Look around. How many idiots do you see?
Jay Leno shows up American ignorance every week with his man-on-the-street
common knowlege questions. My ex-wife actually thought that Texas and
Arizona were in different hemispheres. And she's lived half her life in
either state! People are basically apathetic uneducated ignorant dolts to
begin with. And religion nurtures that, depends on it, and keeps them that
way.
> However, in medieval Europe, many kings carried,
> as part of their regalia (or symbols of power), an "orb" (also called
> a "mound"), which was a golden sphere topped with a cross, the
> sphere representing the spherical earth.
How can you be certain that it represented to whole globe of the Earth
specifically?
> Dante's "Divine Comedy"
> is based upon the concept of a spherical earth (with Hell at the
> center of the earth).
Which is ironic in that Hieronymus Bosch painted the panels so often
associated with Dante's work. Bosch almost certainly read Dante'. Yet he
clearly believed that the Earth was flat as he illustrated it in the Garden
of Earthly Delights and the Third Day of the Creation of the World.
http://www.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delighto.jpg
There is one other illustration that shows the flat Earth complete with
firmament that I know of. It, and an article relevant to this discussion
can be found below.
http://evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com/firmament.html
Bosch and the Flat-Earthers of today believed in a sub-terranian kingdom
beneath the center of the Earth. Bosch painted this in the famed Hell
Panel. And as amazing an image as that was, today's Flat-Earth Society
believes that realm to be inhabited by green-skinned women and Nazis!
> I would appreciate it if you would have some way of finding out
> just how widespread a belief in a flat earth was.
Its hard to say for certain how many people believed that in the Middle
Ages. But as with most scientific revelations, the clergy seems to hold out
the longest and resist the most. After all the Bible repeatedly states very
clearly that the Earth is flat, that it is fixed and does not move, and that
the sun, moon, and stars were created afterward as decorations within a
firmament that doesn't exist. And the clergy usually doesn't agree with
themselves much either, (then as today). While some support the sciences,
others abstained as many of them still do, remaining obstinant against all
evidence that is ever presented.
In the words of Bosch's contemporary, Ferdinand Magellan; "The Church
teaches that the world is flat. But I know that it is round for I have seen
its shadow on the moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the
Church".
I've heard of people that believed that the stars were no more than lights
in the firmament. And my own grandmother was a geocentrist who required
repeated explanations to explain why Australians didn't fall off the world.
So in an age when ailments would be attributed to toads or gnomes living in
your stomach, Platygćanism was probably the norm, no matter what the
scholars knew.
> As far as a belief in a spherical earth today, I suppose that
> most people believe that, not because of any thought about it, but
> just because they know that they'd be laughed at to believe in a
> flat earth. Ask somebody sometime why they believe that the earth
> is round.
Well, there is the fact that everyone has seen a globe and knows that you
can buy a ticket and fly from San Francisco to the Orient and continue all
the way around. That is pretty sound evidence. But then we've all seen
other spheres in the sky too. The Sun, moon, Jupiter, etc. And then of
course there are eclipses and astronauts and Martian probes. And it is even
possible to perceive the sphere of the Earth at altitude if you're high
enough on a clear day.
None of this matters to the Flat-Earth Society of course.
From http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.mhtml
"Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false
spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven".
And how can you argue with that?
Aron-Ra
altheim
"John R. Owens" <j.o...@core.com> wrote:
> altheim wrote:
> > "Luke" <vag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > [...]
> > > I think Jehovah's Witness's really need to stop shoving their
> > > religion down other peoples' throats. You need to obey the
> > > rule of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
> > > Sure, go believe whatever you feel comfortable believing, but
> > > don't try to push your beliefs onto anyone else.
> >
> > To be fair, I see a lot of non-JWs here who do precisely that
> > including you. I won't say that you are doing any wrong but
> > suggest that these Usenet groups are the place to exchange
> > viewpoints. I.e if you read something you disagree with you
> > challenge it, debate it, overcome it with logical argument
> > (if you can) - not order the other guy to keep silent just
> > because you have run out of arguments.
> >
> like he meant their activities outside the newsgroups, the door-to-door,
> trying to get creationism into the curriculum, etc. That's more like
> "shoving their religion down other people's throats".
Yes I see - I take your point. But I can't see anyone stopping
them or making them feel guilty about their missionary activities.
From their POV it's their duty to spread the gospel and although,
as I have said elsewhere, their targets are *free* to resist not
everyone has the courage in the presense of a self professed
advocate of The Lord to say NO.
Really. I think that is what angers people so. Not the fact of JW
agression but simple superstitious fear.
--
altheim
John R. Owens
> >
> > Geocentrism is different from belief in a flat earth.
>
> I realize that of course. I listed that (along with dpwozney's denial of
> dinosaurs) to illustrate how people will vary from accepted science, (even
> after they have been taught otherwise) in favor of their cherished fables.
>
> > As far as how wide-spread belief in a flat earth was among people
> > who lived far from the sea, I don't know. I suppose that most
> > people didn't care.
>
> Apathy continues to be a problem today. You would be amazed at how stupid
> the common man is. Watch Street Smarts sometime. Or just watch the news.
> Or listen to an interview with "Dubya". There's no accounting for common
> sense in this world. Look around. How many idiots do you see?
>
> Jay Leno shows up American ignorance every week with his man-on-the-street
> common knowlege questions. My ex-wife actually thought that Texas and
> Arizona were in different hemispheres. And she's lived half her life in
> either state! People are basically apathetic uneducated ignorant dolts to
> begin with. And religion nurtures that, depends on it, and keeps them that
> way.
Well, if you really know what you're talking about, you could point out
that a hemisphere can be the surface of the earth on one side of _any_
great circle. But if I had to guess the reasoning of the
man-on-the-street thinking they were in different hemispheres, I'd
definitely put my money on a lack of geographical knowledge rather than
that.
>
<snip>
>
> In the words of Bosch's contemporary, Ferdinand Magellan; "The Church
> teaches that the world is flat. But I know that it is round for I have seen
> its shadow on the moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the
> Church".
>
That's a great quote. I'll have to add it to my rotating sig file once
I get it running. :)
>
> None of this matters to the Flat-Earth Society of course.
> From http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.mhtml
> "Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false
> spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven".
>
> And how can you argue with that?
>
> Aron-Ra
"Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. It hasn't been proven."
Haven't we been down this road once or twice before?
stu...@hotmail.com
> From their POV it's their duty to spread the gospel and although,
> as I have said elsewhere, their targets are *free* to resist not
> everyone has the courage in the presense of a self professed
> advocate of The Lord to say NO.
> altheim
This is true. Imagine if you will, people who honestly believe that they are
saving you by pushing their religion in your face. Sort of like if you were
about to smoke some crack, not knowing what the later repercussions would
be, and somebody came up to you and tried very vehemently to get you to stop
for your own good. At least... that's how the good ones feel. There are of
course those righteous pigs who would just use any old excuse to act
superior and cruel. Not that knowing some of them really do have good
intentions stops me from slapping their watchtowers to the floor and
uttering random obscenities at them... I just think somebody might find it
interesting is all.
Ken Cox
> Jay Leno shows up American ignorance every week with his man-on-the-street
> common knowlege questions. My ex-wife actually thought that Texas and
> Arizona were in different hemispheres.
If it's any consolation, they are, for an appropriate
choice of the dividing great circle.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Adam Marczyk
news:f%Da7.68$Bm4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[snip]
> Well, there is the fact that everyone has seen a globe and knows that you
> can buy a ticket and fly from San Francisco to the Orient and continue all
> the way around. That is pretty sound evidence. But then we've all seen
> other spheres in the sky too. The Sun, moon, Jupiter, etc. And then of
> course there are eclipses and astronauts and Martian probes. And it is
even
> possible to perceive the sphere of the Earth at altitude if you're high
> enough on a clear day.
>
> None of this matters to the Flat-Earth Society of course.
> From http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.mhtml
> "Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false
> spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven".
>
> And how can you argue with that?
In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that that page is a hoax.
The real Flat Earth Society doesn't have a web site (assuming it even still
exists - its founder died not too long ago).
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Wade Hines
Aron-Ra wrote:
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > Luke wrote:
> > > Dude, in those days people believed the goddamn earth was
> > > flat. It's not relevant in any way shape or form to modern society.
> > Who believed the Earth was flat? Certainly comparatively few
> > educated persons have believed this in the last 2000 years or so.
> Sailors and seafarers clearly did not believe that. But most people living
> away from the sea did believe that back then.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
Please provide something to substantiate your claim.
> I've actually met
> geocentrists even in this century! And a few (like dpwozney) who deny that
> dinosaurs ever existed! The leader of the American Flat-Earth society just
> died a year or so ago, but his following lives on. And it has been around
> since Biblical times. Read the Bible again. They certainly thought the
> Earth was flat. To them, the Earth was merely a single mass of land
> floating on an eternal sea.
Again, can you substantiate that or would you like to retract?
> In fact, there are a few Muslims in that region
> today who still believe the Earth is flat.
That may be for some fringe group. Regardless, I'm
concerned that your major claims are overstated
and misinformed. Please provide some support.
Noelie S. Alito
news:3B6B35A7...@research.bell-labs.com...
> Aron-Ra wrote:
> > Jay Leno shows up American ignorance every week with his
man-on-the-street
> > common knowlege questions. My ex-wife actually thought that Texas and
> > Arizona were in different hemispheres.
>
> If it's any consolation, they are, for an appropriate
> choice of the dividing great circle.
And depending on what your politics are, sometimes they are
different planets.
Noelie
P.S. Perhaps she had "hemisphere" confused with "time zone"
--
Bobby told Lucy, "The world ain't round...
Drops off sharp at the edge of town.
Lucy, you know the world must be flat
'Cause when people leave town, they never come back"
--Hal Ketchum
Aron-Ra
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9kfh29$1k3i$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f%Da7.68$Bm4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Well, there is the fact that everyone has seen a globe and knows that
you
> > can buy a ticket and fly from San Francisco to the Orient and continue
all
> > the way around. That is pretty sound evidence. But then we've all seen
> > other spheres in the sky too. The Sun, moon, Jupiter, etc. And then of
> > course there are eclipses and astronauts and Martian probes. And it is
> even
> > possible to perceive the sphere of the Earth at altitude if you're high
> > enough on a clear day.
> >
> > None of this matters to the Flat-Earth Society of course.
> > From http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.mhtml
> > "Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false
> > spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven".
> >
> > And how can you argue with that?
>
> In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that that page is a hoax.
> The real Flat Earth Society doesn't have a web site (assuming it even
still
> exists - its founder died not too long ago).
I would readily believe that. But that page does bear a content copywrite
in the name of the Flat Earth Society.
Besides the website is called Flat-Earth.Org so they must be legitimate.
And another quote from that site:
"The Society asserts that the Earth is flat and has five sides, that all
places in the Universe named Springfield are merely links in
higher-dimensional space to one place",
....which makes perfect sense! And it explains why the Simpsons have never
revealed their home state! Now that CGI Simpsons episode makes so much more
sense as well! If you link the Springfields of Oregon, Missouri, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, etc. you'll discover an
extradimensional society of yellow-skinned animated characters with only
four digits on each hand.
To continue-
"and that all assertions are true in some sense, false in some sense,
meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and
meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true
false and meaningless in some sense".
And like I said, who can argue with that?
I guess this is another one like the Landover Baptist site. Its just too
hard to determine sincere madness from raving lunacy. What's the point of
parady any more?
Aron-Ra
Tom
<pVIa7.377$Kn3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
[...snip...]
>Besides the website is called Flat-Earth.Org so they must be legitimate.
>
>And another quote from that site:
>"The Society asserts that the Earth is flat and has five sides, that all
>places in the Universe named Springfield are merely links in
>higher-dimensional space to one place",
>
>....which makes perfect sense! And it explains why the Simpsons have never
>revealed their home state! Now that CGI Simpsons episode makes so much more
>sense as well! If you link the Springfields of Oregon, Missouri, Illinois,
>Massachusetts, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, etc. you'll discover an
>extradimensional society of yellow-skinned animated characters with only
>four digits on each hand.
>
>To continue-
>"and that all assertions are true in some sense, false in some sense,
>meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and
>meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true
>false and meaningless in some sense".
>
>And like I said, who can argue with that?
>
>I guess this is another one like the Landover Baptist site. Its just too
>hard to determine sincere madness from raving lunacy. What's the point of
>parady any more?
My favorite is "The Inside the Hollow Earth Hypothesis".
That the earth is spherical, but we live on the *inside* surface
of the sphere. All of the heavenly bodies are on the inside. They
just are very, very small. The rocks and such are on the outside of
the spherical surface. All of the laws of physics are changed by
an appropriate mathematical transformation (inside the sphere <-->
outside the sphere, so that the point at infinity is transformed to
the zero point) so there is no possibility of disproving it.
It fascinates me because, on the "falsifiability" criterion,
it is non-scientific. Which means that its negation, the idea that
everybody else accepts, that we live on the outside of the sphere,
is therefore also non-falsifiable, and non-scientific.
This is not my invention. I recall reading many years ago that
there actually were people who believed this. There has to be a
web page somewhere on this, but I don't where.
Tom
Stephen F. Schaffner
><snip>
>>
>> In the words of Bosch's contemporary, Ferdinand Magellan; "The Church
>> teaches that the world is flat. But I know that it is round for I have seen
>> its shadow on the moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the
>> Church".
>>
>
> That's a great quote. I'll have to add it to my rotating sig file once
>I get it running. :)
I'm a little dubious about its greatness, and even more dubious
about its authorship. The idea that the church taught that the
world was flat was invented long after Magellan.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Aron-Ra
"Stephen F. Schaffner" <ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9kiht6$8bj$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <3b6b1778$0$15661$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> John R. Owens <j.o...@core.com> wrote:
> >Aron-Ra wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> In the words of Bosch's contemporary, Ferdinand Magellan; "The Church
> >> teaches that the world is flat. But I know that it is round for I have
seen
> >> its shadow on the moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the
> >> Church".
> >>
> >
> > That's a great quote. I'll have to add it to my rotating sig file once
> >I get it running. :)
>
> I'm a little dubious about its greatness, and even more dubious
> about its authorship. The idea that the church taught that the
> world was flat was invented long after Magellan.
Then you have an explanation for the religious illustrations of the 15th
Century that depict the Earth as a flat disk with a domicile firmament then,
right?
Aron-Ra
H,R.Gruemm
> "On 3 Aug 2001 22:40:54 -0400, in article
> <pVIa7.377$Kn3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
> [...snip...]
> My favorite is "The Inside the Hollow Earth Hypothesis".
>
> That the earth is spherical, but we live on the *inside* surface
> of the sphere. All of the heavenly bodies are on the inside. They
> just are very, very small. The rocks and such are on the outside of
> the spherical surface. All of the laws of physics are changed by
> an appropriate mathematical transformation (inside the sphere <-->
> outside the sphere, so that the point at infinity is transformed to
> the zero point) so there is no possibility of disproving it.
>
> It fascinates me because, on the "falsifiability" criterion,
> it is non-scientific. Which means that its negation, the idea that
> everybody else accepts, that we live on the outside of the sphere,
> is therefore also non-falsifiable, and non-scientific.
>
> This is not my invention. I recall reading many years ago that
> there actually were people who believed this. There has to be a
> web page somewhere on this, but I don't where.
>
> Tom
Actually, there is evidence for the Hollow Earth Theory. Shoes show
sign of wear first at the tip and at the heel - which proves that we
are walking on a concave, not on a convex surface ;-)
HRG.
Tom
<6j4b7.797$eU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
>
>
>"Stephen F. Schaffner" <ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:9kiht6$8bj$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
>> In article <3b6b1778$0$15661$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
>> John R. Owens <j.o...@core.com> wrote:
>> >Aron-Ra wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >> In the words of Bosch's contemporary, Ferdinand Magellan; "The Church
>> >> teaches that the world is flat. But I know that it is round for I have
>seen
>> >> its shadow on the moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the
>> >> Church".
>> >>
I have tried to track down this alleged quotation of Magellan,
but I've been unsuccessful. Can you tell me where and when he said
this? I remind you that Magellan was born about 1480.
>> >
>> > That's a great quote. I'll have to add it to my rotating sig file once
>> >I get it running. :)
>>
>> I'm a little dubious about its greatness, and even more dubious
>> about its authorship. The idea that the church taught that the
>> world was flat was invented long after Magellan.
>
>Then you have an explanation for the religious illustrations of the 15th
>Century that depict the Earth as a flat disk with a domicile firmament then,
>right?
Please give a citation for these 15th century religious
illustrations.
Tom
Stephen F. Schaffner
First, which religious illustrations do you have in mind? Second,
why would such illustrations indicate that the church taught that the
world was flat? 20th century illustrations frequently include
representations of Cupid and Santa Claus; does that mean that people
believed in them?
If you want to know what people thought about the shape of the
earth, look at what they said about it. There is overwhelming
written evidence that the sphericity of the earth was commonplace
knowledge throughout the medieval period and beyond. There is
precisely zero written evidence that the church taught otherwise
in the 15th century. (There had been a couple of minor Christian
figures who thought that the world was flat -- but they'd lived a
thousand years earlier.)
Michael L. Siemon
<ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
+ In article <6j4b7.797$eU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
+ Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
+ >Then you have an explanation for the religious illustrations of the 15th
+ >Century that depict the Earth as a flat disk with a domicile firmament then,
+ >right?
+
+ First, which religious illustrations do you have in mind?
There is a quite widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
his head through a firmament from a flat earth. This obviously is a bit
of informed (by the absurdity) playfulness -- except that it may have
been generated in the wave of late 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry
that produced the crap about medievals believing in a flat earth. Aron-
Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if not, he needs
to produce an example. Images in the _Tres Riches Heures_ of Jean duc
de Berry, for example (smack in the middle of the 15th century) belie
the claim, as do the somewhat later Visconti Hours. This is not news,
of course. Nobody with the slightest real aquaintence with the medieval
period thinks any such thing -- only the abysmal ignorance of history
by "moderns" allows extravagant nonsense like this to persist.
Aron-Ra
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:060820010055558726%m...@panix.com...
That and the works of the period of course. I was referring to an old ink
work, (an engraving I think) that I had seen showing the world as flat
floating island and lying beneath a dome with the sun and moon within it.
Since I can't remember that artist's name, then I would refer you to
Hieronymous Bosch, (once again) a monk who lived at the end of the 15th
Century. A contemporary of both Colombo and Magellan. And yet, his piece
in the Garden of Earthy Delights, entitled "The Third Day of the Creation of
the Earth" quite indisputeably depicts a flat disk-world sitting within a
transparent sphere. Within this sphere from above, are the sun and clouds.
Below, we can only deduce by his other works. Specifically his most famous
"Hell Panel".
So, of two such examples that I have seen, I have produced one from the
requested period that should save me from being a mere "sucker". Now my
question is, since we have early Renaissance artwork, painted by a Dutch
Catholic living in a monestary that actually does show the world as being
flat, with a firmament and everything, just before Colombus and Magellan
return from missions that would have had little point if everyone knew the
world was round already, ....
How is this a "modern"? And how could this be "extravagant nonsense"?
So...Do you have any illustrations, rendered by any religious persons living
in Europe in or before the 15th Century with which to counter my Bosch? If
not, then my "nonsense" becomes "sense". And your resistance becomes
something more like "denial" or "rationalization".
Aron-Ra
Wade Hines
Rather than pretending to be able to infer things from artwork, respond
to this.
Michael L. Siemon
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+ That and the works of the period of course. I was referring to an old ink
+ work, (an engraving I think) that I had seen showing the world as flat
+ floating island and lying beneath a dome with the sun and moon within it.
+
+ Since I can't remember that artist's name, then I would refer you to
+ Hieronymous Bosch, (once again) a monk who lived at the end of the 15th
+ Century. A contemporary of both Colombo and Magellan. And yet, his piece
+ in the Garden of Earthy Delights, entitled "The Third Day of the Creation of
+ the Earth" quite indisputeably depicts a flat disk-world sitting within a
+ transparent sphere. Within this sphere from above, are the sun and clouds.
+ Below, we can only deduce by his other works. Specifically his most famous
+ "Hell Panel".
Depictions of mythology hardly count.
+
+ So, of two such examples that I have seen, I have produced one from the
+ requested period that should save me from being a mere "sucker". Now my
+ question is, since we have early Renaissance artwork, painted by a Dutch
+ Catholic living in a monestary that actually does show the world as being
+ flat, with a firmament and everything,
No, it shows no such thing. Like Michelangelo's beefy Creator in the
Sistine, it shows only conventions for representation of myth.
just before Colombus and Magellan
+ return from missions that would have had little point if everyone knew the
+ world was round already, ....
Garbage. The whole of the 15th century of Portugese and associated
navigation was gradual pushing of the "get around the turks to China"
business. Columbus was dead wrong -- and told so by the advisors --
but because they _knew_ his purported radius was too small. Magellan
was not proving any scientific point, but operating at another
generation of naval technology (Columbus could not have made that
journey in the ships he had. European naval technology then was just
about as dynamic as computer technology is today.)
You really need to get your head out of your ass if you want to be
seen as something other than an ignorant nitwit.
Tom
<m%qb7.1778$jD2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
Hieronomus Bosch was not a monk. He was married and owned a house.
>
>So, of two such examples that I have seen, I have produced one from the
>requested period that should save me from being a mere "sucker". Now my
>question is, since we have early Renaissance artwork, painted by a Dutch
>Catholic living in a monestary that actually does show the world as being
>flat, with a firmament and everything, just before Colombus and Magellan
>return from missions that would have had little point if everyone knew the
>world was round already, ....
>How is this a "modern"? And how could this be "extravagant nonsense"?
>
>So...Do you have any illustrations, rendered by any religious persons living
>in Europe in or before the 15th Century with which to counter my Bosch? If
>not, then my "nonsense" becomes "sense". And your resistance becomes
>something more like "denial" or "rationalization".
Yes, of course there are plenty of them. I have often referred
to the item of regalia called the "orb". The orb was a golden
sphere topped by a cross, as a representation of the rule of Christ
over the spherical earth.
Hieronymus Bosch is hardly a representational painter.
Could you please substantiate your claim that Magellan said
something about how the Church says that the earth is flat, and
how he knew better? I've seen that alleged quotation often, but
never with a citation. It seems to me just another one of those
made-up quotations.
Remember that Magellan was born about 1480, so he would have
been, at most, a teenager when Columbus returned from America;
when the Papal Bull dividing up the world between Spain and
Portugal referred to the poles of the earth. I find it extremely
implausible that a teenager would have been so precocious, or
that anyone would have been safe from the Inquisition in
countering the Church that way.
By the way, as is well known, there are several heroes and
villains in the transition from a fixed earth to a moving earth.
Bruno and Galileo, for example, were punished. I'd think that
there would be somebody who was punished for saying that the
earth was round, but nobody has ever heard of them.
In brief, the "flat earth" is just another tall tale.
Tom
Aron-Ra
So by looking at a painting of a flat disk-shaped world in a glass ball with
the clouds inside it, and the fact that that painting's title clearly
indicates that it is to represent the Earth from a religious perspective,
I'm only "pretending to infer things from artwork"? I guess a year or so of
art history only served to confuse me further by lying to me a lot more,
right?
But the link you provided did list a few people who claimed that the Earth
was a flat circular disk and did not cite anyone to oppose that idea. Why
if their so certain that people believed in a spherical Earth, did they not
have a single shred of evidence for that belief? I have an illustration.
Two in fact. And then their are the words of Magellan to back those up.
But the link above has only a misread Bible quote. Isaah 40:22 refers to a
circle, not a sphere. And everyone who believed in a flat Earth believed
that it was circular. Not only that but the reference in context; ie "sits
above the circle of the Earth" better translates as "sits above the whole of
the Earth". The Bible very clearly indicates that the Earth is flat and is
usually considered to be no more than a floating land mass on an endless
sea, except that it is also "fixed" and "does not move". Neither is
remotely accurate when attempting to describe this hurtling, spinning,
orbiting globe.
Instead of pretending to refute my argument, how about presenting some kind
of evidence either in art or literature? If you can't produce either, you
lose.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
> In article <m%qb7.1778$jD2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> + That and the works of the period of course. I was referring to an old
ink
> + work, (an engraving I think) that I had seen showing the world as flat
> + floating island and lying beneath a dome with the sun and moon within
it.
> +
> + Since I can't remember that artist's name, then I would refer you to
> + Hieronymous Bosch, (once again) a monk who lived at the end of the 15th
> + Century. A contemporary of both Colombo and Magellan. And yet, his
piece
> + in the Garden of Earthy Delights, entitled "The Third Day of the
Creation of
> + the Earth" quite indisputeably depicts a flat disk-world sitting within
a
> + transparent sphere. Within this sphere from above, are the sun and
clouds.
> + Below, we can only deduce by his other works. Specifically his most
famous
> + "Hell Panel".
>
> Depictions of mythology hardly count.
Exactly why not?
> +
> + So, of two such examples that I have seen, I have produced one from the
> + requested period that should save me from being a mere "sucker". Now my
> + question is, since we have early Renaissance artwork, painted by a Dutch
> + Catholic living in a monestary that actually does show the world as
being
> + flat, with a firmament and everything,
>
> No, it shows no such thing. Like Michelangelo's beefy Creator in the
> Sistine, it shows only conventions for representation of myth.
>
> just before Colombus and Magellan
> + return from missions that would have had little point if everyone knew
the
> + world was round already, ....
>
> Garbage. The whole of the 15th century of Portugese and associated
> navigation was gradual pushing of the "get around the turks to China"
> business. Columbus was dead wrong -- and told so by the advisors --
> but because they _knew_ his purported radius was too small. Magellan
> was not proving any scientific point, but operating at another
> generation of naval technology (Columbus could not have made that
> journey in the ships he had. European naval technology then was just
> about as dynamic as computer technology is today.)
Do you have any more than your opinion to support this?
> You really need to get your head out of your ass if you want to be
> seen as something other than an ignorant nitwit.
No one sees me as a "nit wit". But I invite you to cough up some evidence
to support your allegation. I did. I didn't offer an opinion because I am
objective. I only offered evidence and the only conclusion that can be
drawn from it. You respond with nothing but angst, opinion, and insult.
And not a shred of evidence to clear this up at all. Why is that?
Aron-Ra
Tom
<mIwb7.203$t41....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
[...snip...]
>So by looking at a painting of a flat disk-shaped world in a glass ball with
>the clouds inside it, and the fact that that painting's title clearly
>indicates that it is to represent the Earth from a religious perspective,
>I'm only "pretending to infer things from artwork"? I guess a year or so of
>art history only served to confuse me further by lying to me a lot more,
>right?
>
>But the link you provided did list a few people who claimed that the Earth
>was a flat circular disk and did not cite anyone to oppose that idea. Why
>if their so certain that people believed in a spherical Earth, did they not
>have a single shred of evidence for that belief? I have an illustration.
>Two in fact. And then their are the words of Magellan to back those up.
You are arguing like a creationist.
You ignore the citations of people who *did* accept the spherical
earth, as if they didn't exist.
You do *not* give citations for your allegations.
The alleged quotation from Magellan is, as far as I can tell,
without basis. Show me wrong by giving a citation from Magellan.
For people before the 15th century in European Christianity who
accpeted the spherical earth, need I remind you of Dante? Or
Thomas Aquinas? Hardly minor figures.
"There are two earths in Dante's writings. The first is the
conventional earth of medieval geography that is variously
described in the _Convivio_, the _Monarchia_, and the
_Questio de Aqua et Terra_. This earth is a solid sphere ...
<quote>Dante derived this picture of the earth from medieval
encyclopedists like Brunetto Latini and Isidore of Seville ...
within that tradition there is considerable agreement on some
matters, such as the earth's spherical shape and its rough
dimensions. ...
"Dante's other earth, the earth of the _Commedia_, shares most
of the features of the first, but with two remarkable additions.
Extending beneath Jerusalem is the great hollow cone of Hell ...
Standing exactly opposite Jerusalem in the midst of the southern
ocean is Purgatory ..." John Kleiner, in "The Dante Encyclopedia",
ed. Richard Lansing, New York & London, Garland Publishing, 2000,
pages 328-330.
[...snip...]
>Instead of pretending to refute my argument, how about presenting some kind
>of evidence either in art or literature? If you can't produce either, you
>lose.
There goes an irony meter.
Tom
Wade Hines
Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
_Inventin the Flat Earth_, subtitled
"Columbus and the Modern Historians", by Jeffrey Burton
Russell, Prager, 1997 (paper).
ISBN 027595904X
Ken Cox
> There is a quite widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
> his head through a firmament from a flat earth.
Do you mean the one at http://www.earthvisions.net/flat_earth.htm
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Brian M. Scott
>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:060820010825396387%m...@panix.com...
>> In article <m%qb7.1778$jD2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> + just before Colombus and Magellan
>> + return from missions that would have had little point if everyone knew
>> + the world was round already, ....
>> Garbage. The whole of the 15th century of Portugese and associated
>> navigation was gradual pushing of the "get around the turks to China"
>> business. Columbus was dead wrong -- and told so by the advisors --
>> but because they _knew_ his purported radius was too small. Magellan
>> was not proving any scientific point, but operating at another
>> generation of naval technology (Columbus could not have made that
>> journey in the ships he had. European naval technology then was just
>> about as dynamic as computer technology is today.)
>Do you have any more than your opinion to support this?
It's common knowledge amongst historians and anyone with the slightest
knowledge of the period. Bede (ca.700 CE) knew that the earth was
more or less spherical; in the 15th c. every educated person would
have known as much. (We've been through this numerous times in
soc.history.medieval, at least once in sci.archaeology, and at least
once here in t.o.; you shouldn't have any trouble tracking down at
least some of those discussions.) Columbus was using an erroneous
estimate for the circumference of the earth that he got from Ptolemy,
who had it from Strabo, who somehow reduced a decent estimate by
Poseidonius by 25%.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Michael L. Siemon
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+ No one sees me as a "nit wit".
No?
+ But I invite you to cough up some evidence
I did already (as have many others; you have steadfastly ignored the
suggestions.)
+ to support your allegation. I did. I didn't offer an opinion because I am
+ objective. I only offered evidence and the only conclusion that can be
+ drawn from it.
The "conclusion" you draw from the painting of a fantasist, many of
whose iconographical meanings are totally obscure is hardly the "only"
one. You are clearly completely ignorant of the history of art (or of
Christian iconography), as you are of the history of European literature
(try Dante on for spherical earth size), and of the history of
navigation. You venture total absurdities about Magellan and Columbus,
and don't even understand why they are absurd -- and the overwhelming
historical foundations of the standard opinion. If you'd like an easy
and (within its limits) magisterial treatment of Columbus and Magellan
to rid you of your cobwebby reliance on bigotries, try Morrison's works
on the great discoveries.
+ You respond with nothing but angst, opinion, and insult.
+ And not a shred of evidence to clear this up at all. Why is that?
I apologize for the insults, especially the conclusion. I tried to
cancel, but (for reasons I understand, but dislike) most news software
these days does not respond to cancels. And as I said, I have offered
evidence (and offer more above.) You have two items of no provenance,
and one bit of late-medieval surrealist painting -- plus utterly bogus
and unattributed "quotes" which any decent critical analysis would show
to be impossible in the mouths of the people you shove them into.
And if you think you are being "objective" and not venturing opinions,
you are as incompetent in your self-assesment as you are in the critical
evaluation of evidence.
Grow up, and learn how to think.
Michael L. Siemon
<k...@lucent.com> wrote:
+ "Michael L. Siemon" wrote:
+ > There is a quite widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
+ > his head through a firmament from a flat earth.
+
+ Do you mean the one at http://www.earthvisions.net/flat_earth.htm
Yes; thank you for posting the URL. A quick look suggests that it is
an excellent site, delving rather nicely into the historiographic
question raised by this "evidently post-medieval" piece!
Paul J Gans
>Aron-Ra wrote:
>> Jay Leno shows up American ignorance every week with his man-on-the-street
>> common knowlege questions. My ex-wife actually thought that Texas and
>> Arizona were in different hemispheres.
>If it's any consolation, they are, for an appropriate
>choice of the dividing great circle.
I think the ex-wife's thought was even more profound that that.
----- Paul J. Gans
Wade Hines
"Michael L. Siemon" wrote:
> The "conclusion" you draw from the painting of a fantasist, many of
> whose iconographical meanings are totally obscure is hardly the "only"
> one. You are clearly completely ignorant of the history of art (or of
> Christian iconography), as you are of the history of European literature
> (try Dante on for spherical earth size), and of the history of
> navigation.
Yet he has claimed to have studied Art History for a year or so,
so it is an entrenched an cultivated ignorance rather than a natural
and naive ignorance.
Evian spelled backwards is ...
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> Could you please substantiate your claim that Magellan said
> something about how the Church says that the earth is flat, and
> how he knew better? I've seen that alleged quotation often, but
> never with a citation. It seems to me just another one of those
> made-up quotations.
It was most likely made up by Robert Ingersoll.
From "Individuality" (1873)
It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had
individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his
own convictions. I believe it was Magellan who said, "The
church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on
the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than
in the Church." On the prow of his ship were disobedience,
defiance, scorn, and success.
Ingersoll gives no source. The quote is certainly fictitious;
quite impossible given what we know of the church at the time
of Magellan.
Ingersoll's quote was picked up and repeated in several compilations
of quotes, but taking only the words he projected onto Magellan,
without mentioning Ingersoll. Ingersoll's fanciful invention is
usually attributed without further comment to Magellan.
The quote is attributed to Magellan by George Seldes in "The
Great Quotations" (1983) and by Cardiff in "What Great Men
Think of Religion" (1945), and picked up also by James Haught
in "2000 years of disbelief" (2000), crediting Seldes. None
of these refer to the original source, Ingersoll.
It is widely repeated all over the place, usually attributed
to Magellan, and sometimes attributed to one of the quote
compilers. Ingersoll is rarely mentioned, as the context of
his original words would hopefully encourage any responsible
scholar to caution. It is, therefore, spread only by the
irresponsible who don't check sources.
I have for Aron-Ra, a friendly caution.
I am a strong atheist, of long standing. However, as I delved into
the matter of flat Earth beliefs earlier this year, I was dismayed
to see how much this myth is spread by atheists, freethinkers and/or
humanists. You will see the same sorry picture when it comes to the
myth of Columbus in opposition to flat Earth beliefs (invented from
nothing by Washington Irving) or of sailors frightened of falling
off the edge of the globe (I don't know how that idea started:
bad novels, I expect) or of church's treating round earth beliefs
as heresy.
It ought to be obvious that there is something wrong with the
notion of flat earth beliefs in the late middle ages. We know that
the cosmology of the period was based on Ptolemy and Aristotle,
and had been for millenia, and we know that this was the churches
view, and we know that this involved a spherical Earth.
And yet, by a combination of atrocious scholarship, credulous
naivity, and undeserved unexamined trust in atheist writers of
the past century, this myth of the flat earth continues to be
spread about today.
Michael Siemon is not the most gentle of debating partners; but
for substance he is right on the money in this matter. The views
you are expressing are silly, and wholly unfounded.
Cheers -- Chris
Steven J.
>
> > There is a quite widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
> > his head through a firmament from a flat earth. This obviously is a bit
> > of informed (by the absurdity) playfulness -- except that it may have
> > been generated in the wave of late 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry
> > that produced the crap about medievals believing in a flat earth. Aron-
> > Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if not, he needs
> > to produce an example. Images in the _Tres Riches Heures_ of Jean duc
> > de Berry, for example (smack in the middle of the 15th century) belie
> > the claim, as do the somewhat later Visconti Hours. This is not news,
> > of course. Nobody with the slightest real aquaintence with the medieval
> > period thinks any such thing -- only the abysmal ignorance of history
> > by "moderns" allows extravagant nonsense like this to persist.
>
> That and the works of the period of course. I was referring to an old ink
> work, (an engraving I think) that I had seen showing the world as flat
> floating island and lying beneath a dome with the sun and moon within it.
>
> Since I can't remember that artist's name, then I would refer you to
> Hieronymous Bosch, (once again) a monk who lived at the end of the 15th
> Century. A contemporary of both Colombo and Magellan. And yet, his piece
> in the Garden of Earthy Delights, entitled "The Third Day of the Creation of
> the Earth" quite indisputeably depicts a flat disk-world sitting within a
> transparent sphere. Within this sphere from above, are the sun and clouds.
> Below, we can only deduce by his other works. Specifically his most famous
> "Hell Panel".
>
educated ones, in the middle ages probably believed in a flat earth.
According to Ron Numbers's _The Creationists_, geocentrism remained
common among Missouri synod Lutherans until about a century ago (and
still has followers in various sects). Platygaeanism had its
adherents until recently, at least. That does *not* show that it was
the official teaching of the Church. The Ptolemaic solar system
aggressively defended by the Church in the 15th and 16th centuries
assumed a spherical Earth, not a flat one, in the center of the
universe.
>
> So, of two such examples that I have seen, I have produced one from the
> requested period that should save me from being a mere "sucker". Now my
> question is, since we have early Renaissance artwork, painted by a Dutch
> Catholic living in a monestary that actually does show the world as being
> flat, with a firmament and everything, just before Colombus and Magellan
> return from missions that would have had little point if everyone knew the
> world was round already, ....
> How is this a "modern"? And how could this be "extravagant nonsense"?
>
Commedia_, however, was written in the early 14th century, and clearly
depicts a spherical Earth, with Satan imprisoned at the center of the
Earth, and the mountain of Purgatory arising on the opposite side of
the globe from Jerusalem. Perhaps many of his contemporaries thought
this view of the Earth extravagant, or even heretical, though no one
condemned him for it. Aristotle, of course, had argued cogently for a
spherical Earth in the 4th century B.C.E., and the Church had been
familiar with Aristotle's works since at least the time of Thomas
Aquinas (12th century, IIRC).
>
> So...Do you have any illustrations, rendered by any religious persons living
> in Europe in or before the 15th Century with which to counter my Bosch? If
> not, then my "nonsense" becomes "sense". And your resistance becomes
> something more like "denial" or "rationalization".
>
cathedrals in which they presided. They show God in human form,
although I'm pretty sure that Church orthodoxy was unwavering that
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit
and in truth." The art was nonliteral, and heavy with conventions
that viewers were expected (perhaps unrealistically) not to take
literally.
>
> Aron-Ra
-- Steven J.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<m%qb7.1778$jD2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> Since I can't remember that artist's name, then I would refer you to
>> Hieronymous Bosch, (once again) a monk who lived at the end of the 15th
>> Century. A contemporary of both Colombo and Magellan. And yet, his piece
>> in the Garden of Earthy Delights, entitled "The Third Day of the Creation of
>> the Earth" quite indisputeably depicts a flat disk-world sitting within a
>> transparent sphere. Within this sphere from above, are the sun and clouds.
>> Below, we can only deduce by his other works. Specifically his most famous
>> "Hell Panel".
>
> First, I am quite willing to concede that many people, even fairly
> educated ones, in the middle ages probably believed in a flat earth.
I'm not. All indications are that in Europe in the late middle ages,
flat earth belief was limited to isolated cranks, if it existed at all.
There is not the slightest reason to think Bosch was such a crank. His
paintings are wonderful fantasy pieces, and reading them as if he
intended to portary a realistic image of the structure of the world
is bizarre.
> According to Ron Numbers's _The Creationists_, geocentrism remained
> common among Missouri synod Lutherans until about a century ago (and
> still has followers in various sects). Platygaeanism had its
> adherents until recently, at least. That does *not* show that it was
> the official teaching of the Church. The Ptolemaic solar system
> aggressively defended by the Church in the 15th and 16th centuries
> assumed a spherical Earth, not a flat one, in the center of the
> universe.
Yes. The last serious defender of a flat Earth was Cosmas (a Nestorian
monk, about 540 CE) and even at the time he was an isolated case, way
out of step with the rest of the church. Cosmas is often cited by
adherents of the flat Earth myth as being highly influential, but
the truth is that he had almost no influence, and was indeed unknown
throughout the middle ages until his works we rediscovered in the
nineteenth century. Interestingly, the notion that flat earth beliefs
had any currency in the middle ages is an invention of the nineteenth
century.
Cheers -- Chris
Aron-Ra
> "On 6 Aug 2001 09:11:30 -0400, in article
> <mIwb7.203$t41....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra"
stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >So by looking at a painting of a flat disk-shaped world in a glass ball
with
> >the clouds inside it, and the fact that that painting's title clearly
> >indicates that it is to represent the Earth from a religious perspective,
> >I'm only "pretending to infer things from artwork"? I guess a year or so
of
> >art history only served to confuse me further by lying to me a lot more,
> >right?
> >
> >But the link you provided did list a few people who claimed that the
Earth
> >was a flat circular disk and did not cite anyone to oppose that idea.
Why
> >if their so certain that people believed in a spherical Earth, did they
not
> >have a single shred of evidence for that belief? I have an illustration.
> >Two in fact. And then their are the words of Magellan to back those up.
>
> You are arguing like a creationist.
Well now I'm stunned. My impression has always been that the true shape of
the Earth was known to many since at least Ptolemy's time. But that certain
indeviduals then, (as now) held out against that belief and probably for
religious reasons. The Bible being very clear in its implication of a flat
world and all.
This is not a cherished belief in any sense. Nor do I defend it. And I
will change my conclusion the moment I have a reason to. In an attempt to
test what I have been taught, (something that no creationist ever does) I
asked for some evidence in either art or literature that religious Europeans
of the middle-ages believed in a spherical planet, *or* evidence of the
debated subject.
The best I got was a mistranslated Bible quote that actually supports my
argument more than theirs.
> You ignore the citations of people who *did* accept the spherical
> earth, as if they didn't exist.
Whom did I ignore?
The only citation I got from Wade Hines was a link to ChristianAnswers,
(already suspect just by the title) which listed: "only a handful of
so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to
represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth", which of course supports my
allegation completely.
This implies that there was indeed a debate regarding the shape of the
Earth, just as I suspected. And that those adherants held to a flat Earth
for religious reasons. Again, just as I suspected.
1. Lactantius, a converted Christian who "lied" and said the Earth was
flat.
2. Cosmas Indicopleustes, who also "lied" and said the Earth was flat,
complete with a firmament filled with clouds, etc. Just like Bosch painted
and I inferred. The idea that other Church elders supposedly contested him
on this comes as no surprise to me. That is what I suspected all along. I
would like to see something that documents that. But the only reference
given in that link was an omission on the excuse that "Church Fathers did
not address the issue of the shape of the Earth", which is of little help.
3. Washington Irving. Although he was hardly medieval and only a writer of
fiction, his "Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus", (mixture of fact
and fiction) was taught to me as fact in grade school. As a matter of fact,
it was a film that was shown to my first grade class and prologued by the
principal as a true story. Whatcha gonna do?
At that time, I lived in an exclusively creationist community in the small
mining town of Thatcher, Arizona. (Don't get me started about what was
taught to me as fact in grade school).
4. And finally, Daniel Boorstin, Christian Letronne, John William Draper,
and Andrew Dickson White. None of whom were medieval contemporaries, but
most, if not each were noted and respected historians of Christian
upbringing who each claimed that Christians held to the belief in a flat
Earth. Of course they too are accused of lying, but no opposing evidence
was presented.
Look at the link again. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
Hines failed to provide either a reference to literature or art that might
imply a spherical belief other than an assetion mixed with chants of "Lies!
All lies!".
Desperate assertions are not very convincing. There is not one medieval
author cited as writing that the Earth was a sphere. Contrary to his own
intent however, he did provide ample evidence that such a debate did in fact
exist and specifically from the religious community.
> You do *not* give citations for your allegations.
I cited Magellan's journal and Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights. That
fact that you call one a liar and the other a mad-man doesn't change the
fact that I did cite them.
> The alleged quotation from Magellan is, as far as I can tell,
> without basis. Show me wrong by giving a citation from Magellan.
I've found that quote among others of his on literally several dozen sites.
None of which cite the title of his journal or where it might be read.
(Hopefully there's only one)
But then most of these sites don't list the actual documents that the quotes
were taken from at all. But the majority of the other quotes listed on
those same sites I do know. And I know the exact books they came from. So,
as far as I can tell, the Magellan quote is probably as accurate as all the
other easily verifiable quotes posted along with it.
Not that I don't respect your criticism. This entire arguement would appear
to hinge on that one quotation. And your beliefs are clearly more
threatened by this matter than mine. I'm just making a casual speculation
and trying to determine the extent of its accuracy. What I am met with is
defensive insults and desperate ravings against me. So far, most of these
replies have inadvertently certified my suspicions, yet accuse me ignoring
evidence.
If I have actually missed something, please point it out.
But as for this quote, until I can actually locate and read Magellan's
journal, we won't know about this point for sure.
> For people before the 15th century in European Christianity who
> accpeted the spherical earth, need I remind you of Dante? Or
> Thomas Aquinas? Hardly minor figures.
The only remotely relevant thing I've found from Aquinas was his insistance
that the Earth could not be eternal because God had to have created it.
Which is neither objective nor scientific. To what quote do you refer?
> "There are two earths in Dante's writings. The first is the
> conventional earth of medieval geography that is variously
> described in the _Convivio_, the _Monarchia_, and the
> _Questio de Aqua et Terra_. This earth is a solid sphere ...
> <quote>
Forgive me, but do you mean to say that "This Earth is a solid sphere" is a
direct quote? If so, that would be the answer that I saught a few posts
ago, but that simple question so far has only rewarded me with so many
childish and defensive insecurities and jeering. Do remember that I
originally asked for any literary or artistic reference to contrast what I
have already read. To date, this is the first and only valid reply.
(Again, if I've somehow missed something other than another jeer, please
point it out).
> Dante derived this picture of the earth from medieval
> encyclopedists like Brunetto Latini and Isidore of Seville ...
> within that tradition there is considerable agreement on some
> matters, such as the earth's spherical shape and its rough
> dimensions. ...
Another problem I have is that if I use a quote which I have found posted on
one hundred websites, it is simply shuffled off as a lie. If I refer to a
rendering, it is immediately discredited because the artist was too
imaginative to be used as a resource. Another Medieval engraving is
dismissed because I don't know the artist's name. Fair enough. But by
contrast, why should I accept such assertions as; "This is common knowlege",
and "anyone who knows anything knows this" without providing half as much
credence as I have? So now I hear "there is considerable agreement on some
matters, such as the earth's spherical shape". Well, (and I know I'm
inviting more defensive outrage) how do you know that? And all I'm asking
for is the slightest clarity. A single rendering of or reference to a
sperical planet. You've provided one from Dante. Do you also have one from
these his peers?
> "Dante's other earth, the earth of the _Commedia_, shares most
> of the features of the first, but with two remarkable additions.
> Extending beneath Jerusalem is the great hollow cone of Hell ...
> Standing exactly opposite Jerusalem in the midst of the southern
> ocean is Purgatory ..." John Kleiner, in "The Dante Encyclopedia",
> ed. Richard Lansing, New York & London, Garland Publishing, 2000,
> pages 328-330.
I've never read Dante. But I suspect that Bosch had. Now I've always
assumed that the underworld of Hell and all that sort of required a sherical
planet, but Bosch seems to have had a different impression. And it seems to
parallel some of what you've written above. Have you seen his garden of
Earthly delights? The Earth is a disk, but the firmament is clearly a
sphere, where most have considered it only a hemisphere according to other
sources. My thought is that if that is indeed Bosch's view of the world,
that he may have either misunderstood what he read, or allowed his religous
perspective to alter that image.
Having posted to T.O. before, I'm sure you've never seen anyone with a
fundamentalist inclination do that, right?
> [...snip...]
> >Instead of pretending to refute my argument, how about presenting some
kind
> >of evidence either in art or literature? If you can't produce either,
you
> >lose.
> There goes an irony meter.
.....with that very statement.
I asked nicely if there were any globes, illustrations, or written
descriptions of the world from a spherical perspective, honestly believing
that there must surely be. Instead I caught a lot of stupid rhetoric and
childish name-calling. Now you present one quote. Finally. And
congratulations. Now do you have an intellectual, (or at least polite)
response to the Bosch painting? Or would you like to continue slamming me
as if I were assaulting you in some way?
I really don't understand religious people and their inability to be the
least bit objective.
Aron-Ra
Wade Hines
Aron-Ra wrote:
I tried to point you in a direction that would let you
stop before making a fool of yourself. I failed.
It contains references to a well respected medieval scholar who has
exposed the falsity behind the widespread belief that medievals
generally believed in a flat earth. If you consider it "suspect"
you reveal a bias. That bias is all to evident in this posting.
> which listed: "only a handful of
> so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to
> represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth", which of course supports my
> allegation completely.
>
> This implies that there was indeed a debate regarding the shape of the
> Earth, just as I suspected. And that those adherants held to a flat Earth
> for religious reasons. Again, just as I suspected.
A distortion on your part. It does not reveal there was a debate, it
lists a few cranks.
> 1. Lactantius, a converted Christian who "lied" and said the Earth was
> flat.
>
> 2. Cosmas Indicopleustes, who also "lied" and said the Earth was flat,
> complete with a firmament filled with clouds, etc. Just like Bosch painted
> and I inferred. The idea that other Church elders supposedly contested him
> on this comes as no surprise to me. That is what I suspected all along. I
> would like to see something that documents that. But the only reference
> given in that link was an omission on the excuse that "Church Fathers did
> not address the issue of the shape of the Earth", which is of little help.
>
> 3. Washington Irving. Although he was hardly medieval and only a writer of
> fiction, his "Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus", (mixture of fact
> and fiction) was taught to me as fact in grade school. As a matter of fact,
> it was a film that was shown to my first grade class and prologued by the
> principal as a true story. Whatcha gonna do?
> At that time, I lived in an exclusively creationist community in the small
> mining town of Thatcher, Arizona. (Don't get me started about what was
> taught to me as fact in grade school).
Do you understand that Irving is largely responsible for introducing
the myth that the earth was believed to be flat? It isn't clear you
grasp the significance of Irving.
> 4. And finally, Daniel Boorstin, Christian Letronne, John William Draper,
> and Andrew Dickson White. None of whom were medieval contemporaries, but
> most, if not each were noted and respected historians of Christian
> upbringing who each claimed that Christians held to the belief in a flat
> Earth. Of course they too are accused of lying, but no opposing evidence
> was presented.
>
> Look at the link again. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
> Hines failed to provide either a reference to literature or art that might
> imply a spherical belief other than an assetion mixed with chants of "Lies!
> All lies!".
Your lack of scholarship is noted. I was not feeding you answers but
a starting point to investigate more. Obviously, you have trouble
taking the word of others - as you should. Still, you failed to
take advantage of the lead.
> Desperate assertions are not very convincing. There is not one medieval
> author cited as writing that the Earth was a sphere. Contrary to his own
> intent however, he did provide ample evidence that such a debate did in fact
> exist and specifically from the religious community.
>
> > You do *not* give citations for your allegations.
>
> I cited Magellan's journal and Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights. That
> fact that you call one a liar and the other a mad-man doesn't change the
> fact that I did cite them.
>
> > The alleged quotation from Magellan is, as far as I can tell,
> > without basis. Show me wrong by giving a citation from Magellan.
>
> I've found that quote among others of his on literally several dozen sites.
> None of which cite the title of his journal or where it might be read.
> (Hopefully there's only one)
You've been duped. Try it in Spanish. It's made up, popular, but made up.
> But then most of these sites don't list the actual documents that the quotes
> were taken from at all. But the majority of the other quotes listed on
> those same sites I do know. And I know the exact books they came from. So,
> as far as I can tell, the Magellan quote is probably as accurate as all the
> other easily verifiable quotes posted along with it.
I tried to prevent this but you're a zealot.
> Not that I don't respect your criticism. This entire arguement would appear
> to hinge on that one quotation. And your beliefs are clearly more
> threatened by this matter than mine. I'm just making a casual speculation
> and trying to determine the extent of its accuracy. What I am met with is
> defensive insults and desperate ravings against me. So far, most of these
> replies have inadvertently certified my suspicions, yet accuse me ignoring
> evidence.
> If I have actually missed something, please point it out.
>
> But as for this quote, until I can actually locate and read Magellan's
> journal, we won't know about this point for sure.
Who's we?
Aron-Ra
> In article <FLwb7.115$nb4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> + No one sees me as a "nit wit".
>
> No?
No. Anyone bright enough to understand the argument wouldn't use such an
infantile descriptive, even if they disagree with me. I'll tell you what
they would do. They might tell me that they think some other factor might
outweigh my submissions. And they might even go so far as to explain why.
And if their argument is a good one, I'll change my view immediately. It
doesn't injure me to learn something new. And I've certainly had beliefs
corrected ad nauseum before. I used to be a Christian, remember?
Not only that, but unless they're mentally deficient themselves, they would
have no reason to become emotionally agitated by my perspective.
Intellectual discussions, even debates, are not conducted that way, except
perhaps by would-be evangelists on the street.
> + But I invite you to cough up some evidence
>
> I did already (as have many others; you have steadfastly ignored the
> suggestions.)
What exactly was that? Aaah yes.
Your inciteful and conclusive contrabution was limited to:
1. "A widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
his head through a firmament from a flat earth".
....which only supports my argument.
2. Allegations of 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry.
But without presenting anything whatsoever to counter that.
Any other quote, description, illustration, or chart from Medieval Europe
that definitely did depict a spherical Earth. Apparently, you think insults
and allegations count toward that somehow. But I was very specific in what
I asked for. And you didn't have it.
3. "'Crap' about medievals believing in a flat earth".
Again, without a single example to falsify that notion.
4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if not, he
needs
to produce an example".
I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two illustrations of
the firmament over the flat Earth, including the Garden of Earthly Delights
by Hieronemous Bosch. You don't like them? Give me a compelling reason why
or give me some similar evidence to counter that. Aint got nuthin'? Then
insult me. Oh, I see you already did.
5. "Images in the _Tres Riches Heures_ of Jean duc de Berry, for example
(smack in the middle of the 15th century) belie the claim",
I really thought it might. And I tried to give you the benefit of the
doubt. I really did. While they are all quite nice pieces for their time,
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/images/heures/heures.html
they all show what could be interpreted as the firmament in calendrical
fashion, with all the Heaven's contained therein over an obviously flat
plane. Note also that Jesus(?) is depicted here again (as in St.Peter's
tomb) driving the sun around in Helios' stolen flying chariot pulled by a
team of pegasi. How is this supposed to convince me that this artist
thought the Earth was a sphere?
6. "The somewhat later Visconti Hours".
I can only assume that you are referring to "The Creation of the Earth"?
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/gelber/body/2d/ViscontiHours/09.25Visco
ntiCreationEarth.jpg
I can see how you might try to infer this. But you have to admit it takes a
stretch of the imagination to change this picture frame into a biosphere.
Even Bosch's work is more definitely clear than this!
Look at the Creation of Plants for example.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/gelber/body/2d/ViscontiHours/09.31Visco
ntiPlants.jpg
Here we repeat the same theme of a circular frame. But in this case, it is
definitely neither organic nor terrestrial. It along with the other frames
dispells whatever notion you derived from the "Creation of the Earth".
7. "This is not news, of course. Nobody with the slightest real aquaintence
with the medieval period thinks any such thing -- only the abysmal ignorance
of history by "moderns" allows extravagant nonsense like this to persist".
Then why did you not recognize your own error(s)? And remember that
"Everyone knows better" cannot be considered a convincing argument. I aksed
"how" anyone might know better. And you all decided to attack instead of
answer.
> + to support your allegation. I did. I didn't offer an opinion because I
am
> + objective. I only offered evidence and the only conclusion that can be
> + drawn from it.
>
> The "conclusion" you draw from the painting of a fantasist, many of
> whose iconographical meanings are totally obscure is hardly the "only"
> one.
You mean like Visconti or DeBerry? Well then, if I have overlooked some
important detail, maybe you could be good enough to point that out? Either
that, or you could arrogantly talk out of your ass and then get it handed to
you. I can play either way, but I would prefer objective intellectual
reward to insipid emotional bickering.
> You are clearly completely ignorant of the history of art (or of
> Christian iconography),
Funny, I took two semesters of art history at two different schools. I
wonder how I missed all that? But then, I wonder how you missed that god in
the flying chariot too. And I'll bet you didn't even know about the similar
rendering in St. Peter's tomb.
> as you are of the history of European literature
> (try Dante on for spherical earth size),
Actually, my impression was that Bosch had read Dante, but had discarded the
idea of a spherical Earth in favor of his own convictions. I am ignorant of
Medieval literature by the way. That was why I asked the question in the
first place. But you have all shown me never to ask a Christian an honest
again.
> and of the history of
> navigation. You venture total absurdities about Magellan and Columbus,
> and don't even understand why they are absurd
Nor do I know what you're on about now. I know that Colombus knew the world
was round as did Magellan, both from ancient sources. I even said so. What
I was implying was that it seemed that some Europeans were trying to
perpetuate the idea of a flat Earth for religious reasons. And so far, my
opponants in this debate have listed a handful who did exactly that. Yet
they contest Magellan's claim that they did.
> -- and the overwhelming
> historical foundations of the standard opinion. If you'd like an easy
> and (within its limits) magisterial treatment of Columbus and Magellan
> to rid you of your cobwebby reliance on bigotries, try Morrison's works
> on the great discoveries.
Cobwebbery reliance on bigotries? I seek resources because I have no
reliance. I ask for them in open forum because I have no bigotries.
Cobwebs? Well if I have questions, I suppose there may be cobwebs.
If you look back through the posts, I said that Magellan claimed (according
to dozens of undisputed sources found so far) that the Church teaches that
the world was flat. And that Bosch appears to have believed in a flat Earth
and he lived in a monestary. I took that to be evidence that Magellan's
alleged claim was probably correct. Instead of pointing out some important
detail to straighten me out, each of you have bantered back with silly
insults that have all been demonstrably incorrect, (remember the passage
from Isaiah?) with the possible exception of Dante and maybe Aquinas.
(still researching). I've always thought Dante had the right idea,
especially being Italian. But I doubt I'll learn that about Aquinas. Any
assistance would be welcome unless delivered with more stupid hypocratic
bigotry, such as you accuse me of, but I do not have.
By the way, who is Morrison? And why would I refer to him? Mind you, I
haven't the time to actually read all of this. Who does? But I don't want
that to be an excuse to be ill-informed. Incedentally, I know quite a bit
about some things you probably don't. And I'm willing to give you brief
explanations as answers rather than to simply send you to the library with
every simple question.
> + You respond with nothing but angst, opinion, and insult.
> + And not a shred of evidence to clear this up at all. Why is that?
>
> I apologize for the insults, especially the conclusion. I tried to
> cancel, but (for reasons I understand, but dislike) most news software
> these days does not respond to cancels. And as I said, I have offered
> evidence (and offer more above.) You have two items of no provenance,
> and one bit of late-medieval surrealist painting -- plus utterly bogus
> and unattributed "quotes" which any decent critical analysis would show
> to be impossible in the mouths of the people you shove them into.
>
> And if you think you are being "objective" and not venturing opinions,
> you are as incompetent in your self-assesment as you are in the critical
> evaluation of evidence.
>
> Grow up, and learn how to think.
Well isn't that the single most telling demonstration of your limits?
Should I re-read these posts to find where I've insulted everyone?
I did. And I think everyone is being a bit reactionary and not the least
rational. Actually you and Tom were both rational for one sentence each.
Then you both got snippy again. Neither with any more justification than
your own indignant prejudices.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
In a manner yes. I attended creationist schools. I didn't even know there
were non-believers until I was a teen-ager. And surprisingly, neither
semester mentioned anything about DeBerry or Visconti. They had all the
more prominant names including Bosch, but I never saw his illustration of
the Earth through either of those sources.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
> Hieronomus Bosch was not a monk. He was married and owned a house.
Are you sure? I know I read in one his biographies that he was a Dutch
monk.
> >So...Do you have any illustrations, rendered by any religious persons
living
> >in Europe in or before the 15th Century with which to counter my Bosch?
If
> >not, then my "nonsense" becomes "sense". And your resistance becomes
> >something more like "denial" or "rationalization".
>
> Yes, of course there are plenty of them. I have often referred
> to the item of regalia called the "orb". The orb was a golden
> sphere topped by a cross, as a representation of the rule of Christ
> over the spherical earth.
But my question is, how do you know that the orb was meant to represent the
Earth?
> Hieronymus Bosch is hardly a representational painter.
Granted.
> Could you please substantiate your claim that Magellan said
> something about how the Church says that the earth is flat, and
> how he knew better? I've seen that alleged quotation often, but
> never with a citation. It seems to me just another one of those
> made-up quotations.
At least one site referred to his journal. The sites where I find that line
list dozens of others that I can immediately certify, so I'm not overly
suspicious of it.
> Remember that Magellan was born about 1480, so he would have
> been, at most, a teenager when Columbus returned from America;
> when the Papal Bull dividing up the world between Spain and
> Portugal referred to the poles of the earth. I find it extremely
> implausible that a teenager would have been so precocious, or
> that anyone would have been safe from the Inquisition in
> countering the Church that way.
>
> By the way, as is well known, there are several heroes and
> villains in the transition from a fixed earth to a moving earth.
> Bruno and Galileo, for example, were punished. I'd think that
> there would be somebody who was punished for saying that the
> earth was round, but nobody has ever heard of them.
I think that happened a long while before Ptolemy. I also think that there
was either a last hold-out or something of a resurgence of Platygćanism in
the middle-ages, similar to creationism now, or dpwozney saying that all
dinosaur skeletons are made of chicken bone.
> In brief, the "flat earth" is just another tall tale.
Honestly, were it not for the Bible and its implications, I would believe
that whole-heartedly. And remember, I went to school in a little mining
community that was damn-near a theocrasy in the 1960s. And they taught me
that Columbus proved the world was round ever since I was knee-high etc.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3b6f...@news.qut.edu.au...
Well not wholly. I just asked about the quote and the painting. The two
together with my abysmal education do present a case. What was silly were
most of the responses. Full of errant references to Bible passages, or
pictures of Jesus in a flying chariot. I honestly expected a correction.
Why else would I have asked so many times and been so specific? But I
expected a rational one like you wrote above. As a matter of fact, I
expected something almost identical to what you wrote above. But all I got
was calumny.
Now I know better than to seek the truth because some bigoted ass will call
ridicule me for it. S'Ok I'll just hide in my inhibited ignorance, right?
:)
Aron-Ra
Wade Hines
Aron-Ra wrote:
> 4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if not, he
> needs
> to produce an example".
>
> I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two illustrations of
Where have you cited a "journal"?
I missed such a post and can't find any reference to such.
Google doesn't seem to have it right now.
Aron-Ra
Steven J. <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:127ccf2e.01080...@posting.google.com...
> "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<m%qb7.1778$jD2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:060820010055558726%m...@panix.com...
> Paintings of the period frequently show bishops towering over the
> cathedrals in which they presided. They show God in human form,
> although I'm pretty sure that Church orthodoxy was unwavering that
> "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit
> and in truth." The art was nonliteral, and heavy with conventions
> that viewers were expected (perhaps unrealistically) not to take
> literally.
I grant you that of course. But it was the only such illustration I knew
of. That's why I asked so many times if there were others. I don't know
why it had to be such an escalated bitch session before someone could
finally say, "No, but there is this....." politely, like Chris Ho finally
did.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
Honestly, there are so many references to this quote, I can't even find it
anymore. Nor can I find any such journal directly.
Aron-Ra
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> In article <FLwb7.115$nb4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> + No one sees me as a "nit wit".
>>
>> No?
>
> No. Anyone bright enough to understand the argument wouldn't use such an
> infantile descriptive, even if they disagree with me. I'll tell you what
> they would do. They might tell me that they think some other factor might
> outweigh my submissions. And they might even go so far as to explain why.
> And if their argument is a good one, I'll change my view immediately. It
> doesn't injure me to learn something new. And I've certainly had beliefs
> corrected ad nauseum before. I used to be a Christian, remember?
Being bright does not preclude the use of infantile descriptions.
The use of *any* description of you, rather than of your
arguments, is a distraction. However, it is a cheap and easy
way to underline and emphasize the extreme naivity of the
argument. This is not an excuse; and no doubt it does not
make the jibes any more palatable.
> Not only that, but unless they're mentally deficient themselves, they would
> have no reason to become emotionally agitated by my perspective.
> Intellectual discussions, even debates, are not conducted that way, except
> perhaps by would-be evangelists on the street.
Er... in talk.origins, it is regrettably common for people to
use prose which suggests emotional agitation. I refer to
howlers posting in response to creationists. I don't think
an inference of mental deficiency is legitimate; and I think
the same holds in this case.
In fact, this exchange might help reveal the frustration which
creationists sometimes experience. It is common for howlers to
dismiss creationists in a cavalier fashion. After all, the
flaws in their arguments are plain, and it they would exert
themselves a little bit they could find this out for themselves.
So often we give hints, refer indirectly to well known errors,
or cite web pages, but don't bother to give a careful or detailed
refutation.
The creationist recognizes that the responses do not stand alone
as an adequate response, but lacks the background to recognize
the that the cavalier howler is assuming -- legitimately -- the
existence of a huge body of adequate response.
This is not to excuse the howlers, nor to excuse the similar
responses you are experiencing. I would in fact advocate a
more careful response to the creationists, and to you.
Yet even here, I am going to rely heavily on references to
other sources.
>> + But I invite you to cough up some evidence
>>
>> I did already (as have many others; you have steadfastly ignored the
>> suggestions.)
>
> What exactly was that? Aaah yes.
> Your inciteful and conclusive contrabution was limited to:
>
> 1. "A widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
> his head through a firmament from a flat earth".
>
> ....which only supports my argument.
Except that Michael is referring to a well known example
(well known to those familiar with this particular debate)
of a completely flawed bit of evidence. This is a case of
someone making a brief reference which is immediately
recognizable to those familiar with this perennial debate.
Howlers often similarly make allusions immediately recognized by
other howlers, but don't explain the background.
The woodcut is mostly likely from the nineteenth century.
The best researched analysis of it is in this site:
<http://www.earthvisions.net/flat_earth.htm>
My interest in the woodcut was first excited because it is
used by Daniel Boorstin as a jacket illustration for
"The Discovers" (1983). Boorstin is a historian with
excellent credentials, but his book contains the most
awful howlers with respect to the flat earth. He repeats
uncritically the myth of Columbus facing opposition founded
on a flat earth, and his jacket cover is credited to the
sixteenth century, but without any justification or
reference.
Jeffrey Russell, in "Inventing the Flat Earth" (1991), is
the most accessible reference for detailing the errors with
the myth of a flat earth belief in the middle ages. He is
scathing about Boorstin.
A more comprehensive and better (in my opinion) reference is
"Heaven and Earth in the Middle Ages -- The Physical World
Before Columbus" by Rudolf Simek (1992, Boydell Press).
> 2. Allegations of 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry.
This is well established. The most relevant example in this
case is Andrew White's "The History of the Warfare Between
Science and Religion" (1897). White is sometimes thought to
be an atheist: but in fact he was a Christian and his book
was mostly intended to show up flaws in the catholic church.
However, the scholarship in that book is likewise appalling.
He likewise uncritically repeats the Columbus myth, and
is widely cited by others (often atheists) as a "proof"
of medieval belief in a flat earth.
> But without presenting anything whatsoever to counter that.
> Any other quote, description, illustration, or chart from Medieval Europe
> that definitely did depict a spherical Earth. Apparently, you think insults
> and allegations count toward that somehow. But I was very specific in what
> I asked for. And you didn't have it.
>
> 3. "'Crap' about medievals believing in a flat earth".
>
> Again, without a single example to falsify that notion.
>
> 4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if
> not, he needs to produce an example".
>
> I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two illustrations of
> the firmament over the flat Earth, including the Garden of Earthly Delights
> by Hieronemous Bosch. You don't like them? Give me a compelling reason why
> or give me some similar evidence to counter that. Aint got nuthin'? Then
> insult me. Oh, I see you already did.
The notion of Magellan's "journal" is new to me entirely. The
only quotes I have ever seen of Magellan and a flat earth are
in fact originally a nineteenth century invention of the famous
atheist writer Robert Ingersoll; who suggests in his original
words that he is working from memory. In fact, no such quote
exists; but many others have picked up Ingersoll's invention
quite uncritically and repeated it with unqualified attribution
to Magellan.
No-one to my knowledge has ever actually referenced his journals.
That is a new twist entirely -- and a demonstration of how a story
grows, with new details being invented from nothing as time passes.
This new detail of a "journal" is exactly the kind of thing which
appears to lend a spurious credibility to the invention.
No doubt this detail was not added with any deliberate intent to
deceive; I am simply observing here that we can see in action how
an urban legend can grow so easily.
[snip art discussion, where I am not well informed]
> Nor do I know what you're on about now. I know that Colombus knew the world
> was round as did Magellan, both from ancient sources. I even said so. What
> I was implying was that it seemed that some Europeans were trying to
> perpetuate the idea of a flat Earth for religious reasons. And so far, my
> opponants in this debate have listed a handful who did exactly that. Yet
> they contest Magellan's claim that they did.
The only examples I have seen listed date about a thousand years
before Columbus and Magellan (Cosmas and Lactantius). Did I miss
any more recent examples?
At the time of Columbus and Magellan, I am not aware of anyone at
all trying to perpetuate the idea of a flat Earth for religious
reasons. It is not impossible, of course, that there may have been
an isolated crank like Charles Johnson in our own time; but even if
there was there would be no reason for Columbus or Magellan to pay
the slightest heed to any such.
There is no record of any trouble those explorers had on the matter
of a flat earth; not with the church, nor with isolated cranks, nor
with fearful sailors, nor with skeptical financiers. The concession
I make above about the possibility of an isolated crank or two is
simply speculation.
I have snipped the art discussion above: my own preferred examples
of medieval beliefs with respect to the shape of the Earth are from
manuscripts.
Here is one from "Imago Mundi" by Honorius Augustodunensis (c 1129)
<http://home.t-online.de/home/03581413454/imago.htm>
Latin, of course, but the first four words are comprehensible...
terre forma est rotunda unde et orbis est dicta.
si enim quis in aere positus eam desuper inspiceret
tota enormitas montium et concavitas vallium minus in ea appareret
quam digitus alicuius si pilam pregrandem in manu teneret.
circuitus autem terre .clxxx. milibus stadiorum mensuratur
quod .xii. mille miliaria et .lii. computatur.
Honorius has a special significance. He wrote many books, and
another relevant to this issue is "Elucidarius". In this he speaks
of the creation of mankind (from the 4 elements earth, fire, water
and air) and how he represents (as a microcosmos) the macrocosmos
(the universe). He states that the head is a sphere because the
earth is a sphere.
"Elucidarius" is particularly significant, because it was widely
translated throughout Europe, and used as a textbook for the lower
clergy. It was not so much teaching a round Earth, but assuming
it as common knowledge, and building upon that. This strongly
suggests that the shape of the earth was very widely known -- and
why would it not be? The lower clergy, of course, were the main
source of learning percolating down to the uneducated populace.
My own secondary source for this information is "Heaven and Earth
in the Middle Ages -- The Physical World Before Colombus", by
Rudolf Simek (1992, trans from German, 1996).
Another relevant consideration is the enormous popular interest
in geography and exploration at the time. Marco Polo's journeys
were widely known; and also a rather more fictitious but hugely
popular account of John Mandeville's travels right around the
world (1357-1371).
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=51723>
<http://www.ucalgary.ca/~chilton/Mandeville5.htm>
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
TOM
<odKb7.2790$nb4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
I made a reference to the "orb". Here is an explanation from an
art history book:
James Hall: Dictionary of Subjects & Symbols in Art, revised ed.,
Icon Editions, 1979 says:
"Globe, or orb, held in the hand of a monarch, signified his
sovereignty over the world. ... In the Christian era, surmounted by
a cross, it was one of the insignia of the Holy Roman Emperors and
of English kings since Edward the Confessor ... In religious art it
may be held by Christ as salvator mundi,
or by god the father. The latter may
rest his feet on a terrestrial globe." (page 139, under entry
"globe")
Michael Siemon referred to the "Tres Riches Heures du Duc de
Berry". Here is an on-line reference:
<http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/f34r.html>
Here is a brief discussion of maps, including a reproduction
of a 1482 map of the world, showing a curved surface:
<http://www.mapforum.com/atlas.htm#1492>
As far as Dante is concerned, I don't have a hand quote directly
from the Divine Comedy, but anyone who reads it can understand that
Dante is travelling through a spherical earth, with Satan at the
middle. As my secondary source strongly confirms.
Here is one reference from Thomas Aquinas:
Summa Theologica, First Part, Question I, Article I, Reply to
Objection II:
"For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the
same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the
astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from
matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself."
<http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100101.htm>
This alleged quotation from Magellan is ridiculous on the
face of it. Magellan was born about 1480, so he would have been
a teenager (at most) when Columbus returned.
Two months after Columbus returned from his trip across the
Atlantic Ocean, the Pope Alexander VI made a formal decree, the
Bull "Inter Caetera" of May 4, 1493, distributing the new lands
to be discovered between the Spanish and the Portuguese. This
famous decree makes explicit mention of the poles of the earth.
That is, the Pope fully accepted the idea of the earth as a
sphere. There was no fuss or ado or argumentation about this
idea (supposedly revolutionary, if you accept the tall tale about
people laughing at Columbus). See the text of this decree
translated into English at
<http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-inter-caetera.html>
You have not given a citation for this alleged quotation. I
know that lots of people have repeated this legend, but nobody
bothers to give a citation. As far as I am concerned, this is
as reliable as the quotation of Darwin that he recanted on his
deathbed.
What can I say about Draper and White, except that they are
totally unreliable and bent on an anti-Church agenda.
"... Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends
as fact, that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical
study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent
apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression
of meticulous scholarship. ... His book, which he commenced writing
in the 1870s, is no longer regarded as even a reliable secondary
source for historical study."
pages 15-16 of
Colin A. Russell
"The Conflict of Science and Religion", pages 12-16 in
Gary B. Ferngren, ed.
"The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition:
An Encyclopedia"
Garland Publishing, 2000
Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes? Yes, there always are
some crackpots around. Tell me, have you ever heard of them
outside of the "flat earth" thing? How influential do you think
they were? As influential as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Thomas Aquinas,
Augustine, Dante?
Have you ever looked at the essay on the subject of the legend
of belief in a flat earth in S.J. Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack"?
Tom
Tom
<odKb7.2790$nb4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aron-Ra" stated..."
>
>
I made a reference to the "orb". Here is an explanation from an
Michael L. Siemon
wrote:
+ Aron-Ra wrote:
+
+
+ > 4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if not, he
+ > needs
+ > to produce an example".
+ >
+ > I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two illustrations of
+
+ Where have you cited a "journal"?
+
+ I missed such a post and can't find any reference to such.
+ Google doesn't seem to have it right now.
See Chris Ho-Stuart's note in a different branch of this thread.
The quote is another late 19th century, unfounded, prejudicial bit
of bogus atheist (or possibly, merely anti-Catholic) invention,
that the vaunted skeptical minds of atheists repeat with as stupid
a disregard for critical thought as the kind of mindless religion
they think they have "escaped" from. Fegh.
Tom
"Michael stated..."
Yes, thank you. This site promisses that there will be more
to come, documenting the medieval acceptance of the "round earth".
Tom
Michael L. Siemon
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
+ >>
+ >> I did already (as have many others; you have steadfastly ignored the
+ >> suggestions.)
+ >
+ > What exactly was that? Aaah yes.
+ > Your inciteful and conclusive contrabution was limited to:
+ >
+ > 1. "A widely reproduced woodcut that shows a shepherd poking
+ > his head through a firmament from a flat earth".
+ >
+ > ....which only supports my argument.
+
+ Except that Michael is referring to a well known example
+ (well known to those familiar with this particular debate)
I also referred to renditions of the Creator with a spherical
earth (in the Visconti Hours; I cited the Tres Riches Heures
as well, but I think I am in error on that -- I can't dig up
the picture. There are undoubtedly others.)
Tom
"Michael stated..."
For the Tres Riches Heures, see:
<http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/f34r.html>
And then there's the apse in San Vitale in Ravenna, from
the 6th century:
<http://web.centre.edu/silver/vitale3.html>
I'm not positive that this represents a spherical earth, rather
than a spherical universe. Or is it a reference to Isaiah 40:22?
Tom
Wade Hines
"Michael L. Siemon" wrote:
> In article <3B6F8C9C...@rcn.com>, Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com>
> + Aron-Ra wrote:
> + > 4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if not, he
> + > needs
> + > to produce an example".
> + > I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two illustrations of
> + Where have you cited a "journal"?
> + I missed such a post and can't find any reference to such.
> + Google doesn't seem to have it right now.
> See Chris Ho-Stuart's note in a different branch of this thread.
> The quote is another late 19th century, unfounded, prejudicial bit
> of bogus atheist (or possibly, merely anti-Catholic) invention,
> that the vaunted skeptical minds of atheists repeat with as stupid
> a disregard for critical thought as the kind of mindless religion
> they think they have "escaped" from. Fegh.
My point was directly to the context of having repeatedly
referenced Magellan's journal. Aron-Ra had not previously
said anything about a journal but makes a pretex that he
had. The source Chris provides does not imply a journal.
It seems to me that reference to a journal is a completely
new invention of Aron-Ra.
I've searched for the quote in English, Spanish and
Portugese. Interestingly it seems to have less variants
in English. In so doing, I've yet to find a reference
to it in Magellan's journal.
Paul J Gans
[...]
>First, I am quite willing to concede that many people, even fairly
>educated ones, in the middle ages probably believed in a flat earth.
>According to Ron Numbers's _The Creationists_, geocentrism remained
>common among Missouri synod Lutherans until about a century ago (and
>still has followers in various sects).
[...]
Has the Missouri synod been around *that* long?
----- Paul J. Gans
Ken Cox
> Steven J. <stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >According to Ron Numbers's _The Creationists_, geocentrism remained
> >common among Missouri synod Lutherans until about a century ago (and
> >still has followers in various sects).
> Has the Missouri synod been around *that* long?
Mid-1800s, I think -- I vaguely recall that they had their
sesquicentennial a few years ago. (One of my sisters was
married in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church.)
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Michael L. Siemon
wrote:
+ http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/f34r.html
Thank you. I was looking for a Creation, and didn't manage to notice
that pic. on flipping through the book (facsimile, obviously... :-))
I knew there was _some_ reason I thought of the thing, originally!
Michael L. Siemon
+ And then there's the apse in San Vitale in Ravenna, from
+ the 6th century:
+
+ <http://web.centre.edu/silver/vitale3.html>
+
+ I'm not positive that this represents a spherical earth, rather
+ than a spherical universe. Or is it a reference to Isaiah 40:22?
Same iconography as the other, though not in a Last Judgment context:
Christos Pantokrator (ruler of all), enthroned on the orb of the earth.
Note the iconography persists for ~1000 years. One problem with the
"Reformation" was that it cut off huge swatches of Christians (and
their post-Christian reflexes :-)) from mainstream Christian tradition.
Chris Ho-Stuart
In fact, it is sometimes said that the reformation was at least in
part a reaction against the church's liberal handling of new ideas
and scholarship. Some of the popes immediately prior to the
reformation were rather hard to distinguish from secular rulers,
and were significant patrons of the arts and the sciences.
The reformation marks the major point at which religion began to
be perceived as in conflict with secular science, and the counter
reformation marks a significant step backwards of the same kind
within the roman church. The contrasting experiences of Copernicus
and Gallileo are due in part to Gallileo's own abrasive personality,
but also to this change within the church.
I'm not an expert on this area; simply recounting a perspective
which I've seen in some books; most notably "Sleepwalkers" by
Arthur Koestler (1959), which is about the revolution in
cosmology and the parts player by Copernicus, Kepler, and
Gallileo.
Cheers -- Chris
Aron-Ra
> > (already suspect just by the title)
>
> It contains references to a well respected medieval scholar who has
> exposed the falsity behind the widespread belief that medievals
> generally believed in a flat earth. If you consider it "suspect"
> you reveal a bias. That bias is all to evident in this posting.
That shouldn't be surprising. As I told you before, I was raised in an
exclusively creationist community, all family members included. I didn't
meet another non-creationist until my teens. Now take all you've ever read
from them and inundate yourself with it for at least a dozen years and
you'll begin to know my angst. Everything, and I mean everything I had ever
"learned" from the Christian community was a lie. And early on, I realized
that if you want to get objective information, you check open sources, not
those exclusively in support of a given idea or bias to begin with. So, if
I am to find out the unbiased truth, I know better than to resource
someplace like ChristianAnswers. All I'm certain to get there is
misinterpreted Biblical references.
> > which listed: "only a handful of
> > so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to
> > represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth", which of course
supports my
> > allegation completely.
> >
> > This implies that there was indeed a debate regarding the shape of the
> > Earth, just as I suspected. And that those adherants held to a flat
Earth
> > for religious reasons. Again, just as I suspected.
>
> A distortion on your part. It does not reveal there was a debate, it
> lists a few cranks.
Which was all I implied in the first place. Specifically, that Bosch may
have believed that depsite having read Dante and supposedly knowing better.
Since learning the source of the the Magellan quote, and finally having seen
the maps I asked for in the first place, I now have a more refined
perspective on the matter at large. But I still have reservations about
Bosch himself.
Bear in mind that I've actually known geocentrists from my own family in my
childhood. And I remember one of them having issues with the whole notion
of gravity and why Australians didn't fall off the globe. I'm not kidding.
And if they could be that way in the enlightened age of 1960s America, then
how many of my grandparents could I expect to find in the dark ages of
illegal literacy?
> > 3. Washington Irving. Although he was hardly medieval and only a
writer of
> > fiction, his "Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus", (mixture of
fact
> > and fiction) was taught to me as fact in grade school. As a matter of
fact,
> > it was a film that was shown to my first grade class and prologued by
the
> > principal as a true story. Whatcha gonna do?
> > At that time, I lived in an exclusively creationist community in the
small
> > mining town of Thatcher, Arizona. (Don't get me started about what was
> > taught to me as fact in grade school).
>
> Do you understand that Irving is largely responsible for introducing
> the myth that the earth was believed to be flat? It isn't clear you
> grasp the significance of Irving.
I grasp that I was taught that very story in a Christian grade school. And
that numerous noted and respected historians also perpetuated that same
notion. What I don't grasp is; if this impression is so popular and so
commonly accepted nationwide, why am I jeered for trying to find out if its
even true or not?
"Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody *knew* the Earth was the center of the
universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody *knew* the world was flat. And
fifteen minutes ago, you knew that we were alone on this planet. Imagine
what you'll 'know' tomorrow".
- A hugely popular movie that is still considered correct by most of America
if only in the context of those first two sentences.
Its obviously nationwide common-knowlege, to be sure. And you better not
question that, or you'll be called a stupid, silly, biased, wholly baseless
zealot. And if you try to examine the evidence first-hand to make up your
own mind, rather than simply listen to the passionate opinions of others who
prefer to answer only with ridicule, you will be accused of perpetuating
atheist lies, while at the same time arguing like a creationist.
> Your lack of scholarship is noted. I was not feeding you answers but
> a starting point to investigate more. Obviously, you have trouble
> taking the word of others - as you should. Still, you failed to
> take advantage of the lead.
I read it. There were neither maps, illustrations, nor literal passages in
support of a Medieval belief in a globe. Not even from the one passage they
did cite:
Incidentally, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 (and numerous
others) that the Bible implies it is not spherical. But flat, fixed, and
unmoving.
All that site did list were a few people that I thought existed already
followed by a posse of perfectly understandable reasons for me to have
believed in Catholic Platygćanism at least until now.
> You've been duped. Try it in Spanish. It's made up, popular, but made up.
>
> > But then most of these sites don't list the actual documents that the
quotes
> > were taken from at all. But the majority of the other quotes listed on
> > those same sites I do know. And I know the exact books they came from.
So,
> > as far as I can tell, the Magellan quote is probably as accurate as all
the
> > other easily verifiable quotes posted along with it.
>
> I tried to prevent this but you're a zealot.
You were rude and reactionary and not the least bit informative. I wanted
direct quotes that were clear and images that were certain, not just your
hostile opinion, nor the opinions of your congregation. Neither did I wish
to hear that I was perpetuating lies by questioning them. (However one does
that).
Exactly what kind of zealot refuses to accept heresay? Now that I have
finally seen the maps and references I asked for, after much bullshit, I
have modified my perspective accordingly. What kind of zealot does that? I
would also like to add that I did not get my clear and indesputeable answers
from you.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
>
> It's common knowledge amongst historians and anyone with the slightest
> knowledge of the period. Bede (ca.700 CE) knew that the earth was
> more or less spherical; in the 15th c. every educated person would
> have known as much.
Gosh. That must have been dozens of people!
> (We've been through this numerous times in
> soc.history.medieval, at least once in sci.archaeology, and at least
> once here in t.o.; you shouldn't have any trouble tracking down at
> least some of those discussions.) Columbus was using an erroneous
> estimate for the circumference of the earth that he got from Ptolemy,
> who had it from Strabo, who somehow reduced a decent estimate by
> Poseidonius by 25%.
I didn't remember any of the names. But I had the basic impression.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
> >descriptions of the world from a spherical perspective, honestly
believing
> >that there must surely be. Instead I caught a lot of stupid rhetoric and
> >childish name-calling. Now you present one quote. Finally. And
> >congratulations. Now do you have an intellectual, (or at least polite)
> >response to the Bosch painting? Or would you like to continue slamming
me
> >as if I were assaulting you in some way?
> >
> >I really don't understand religious people and their inability to be the
> >least bit objective.
> >
> > Aron-Ra
> >
>
> I made a reference to the "orb". Here is an explanation from an
> art history book:
>
> James Hall: Dictionary of Subjects & Symbols in Art, revised ed.,
> Icon Editions, 1979 says:
>
> "Globe, or orb, held in the hand of a monarch, signified his
> sovereignty over the world. ... In the Christian era, surmounted by
> a cross, it was one of the insignia of the Holy Roman Emperors and
> of English kings since Edward the Confessor ... In religious art it
> may be held by Christ as salvator mundi,
> or by god the father. The latter may
> rest his feet on a terrestrial globe." (page 139, under entry
> "globe")
The overall point is moot at this point. But that particular reference
isn't very convincing in light of Jesus' close association with Helios, the
sun-god who preceded him, being so often depicted in Helios' flying chariot
and carrying the sun in his hand.
> Michael Siemon referred to the "Tres Riches Heures du Duc de
> Berry". Here is an on-line reference:
>
> <http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/f34r.html>
I was the one to first provide this link. It shows (to me at least) Jesus
sitting on the sun floating above the flat Earth below.
> Here is a brief discussion of maps, including a reproduction
> of a 1482 map of the world, showing a curved surface:
>
> <http://www.mapforum.com/atlas.htm#1492>
Now this link on the other hand strikes gold. This is what I wanted to see.
And I appreciate that someone could finally refer to something definite,
instead of just laughing that "eveybody knows this", when we both know that
most people don't.
> As far as Dante is concerned, I don't have a hand quote directly
> from the Divine Comedy, but anyone who reads it can understand that
> Dante is travelling through a spherical earth, with Satan at the
> middle. As my secondary source strongly confirms.
I saw a direct quote on another post that was more than adequate.
> Here is one reference from Thomas Aquinas:
> Summa Theologica, First Part, Question I, Article I, Reply to
> Objection II:
>
> "For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the
> same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the
> astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from
> matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself."
I never questioned Dante. But I must admit this surprises me. What little
I've read about Aquinas was mostly from creationist sites. And I didn't
expect much.
> <http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100101.htm>
>
> This alleged quotation from Magellan is ridiculous on the
> face of it. Magellan was born about 1480, so he would have been
> a teenager (at most) when Columbus returned.
After finding that Ingersoll is the only source of that line, I'll not refer
to it again. But I fail to see what his age in 1480 has to do with his
inability to be rebellious
against a creationist mentality when he's off somewhere in the Pacific years
later. Why exactly is that ridiculous?
> Two months after Columbus returned from his trip across the
> Atlantic Ocean, the Pope Alexander VI made a formal decree, the
> Bull "Inter Caetera" of May 4, 1493, distributing the new lands
> to be discovered between the Spanish and the Portuguese. This
> famous decree makes explicit mention of the poles of the earth.
> That is, the Pope fully accepted the idea of the earth as a
> sphere. There was no fuss or ado or argumentation about this
> idea (supposedly revolutionary, if you accept the tall tale about
> people laughing at Columbus). See the text of this decree
> translated into English at
Try to see this from my perspective. The Pope urges Catholocism to accept
such contraversial scientific theorums as evolution. Yet I still know
Catholics who are die-hard Biblical literalists no matter what "comprimises"
they think the pope has made. And this is in the supposedly enlightened age
of literacy!
So you tell me that the pope of the dark ages of blind obedient ignorance
doesn't make his final global decree until *after* Colombus returns. And
I'm supposed to readily accept that the common man back then is somehow
wiser than the common man of today. And everyone just knew better than to
believe in a flat Earth back then? Yet in this century, my own grandmother
couldn't understand why people on the bottom of the Earth didn't fall off.
She was also a geocentrist who said there were no such things as dinosaurs,
'cause if there were, the Bible would have said so. And they wouldn't be
extinct 'cause you can't have extinction 'cause God wouldn't allow it.
Let's pretend that Ingersoll actually had a reliable source for that line.
If that were the case, could you explain to me why it would have to be
ridiculous? I mean you say that no one in the church believed or taught any
such thing oh so long ago. But you would be ashamed to hear the things they
tried to teach me in church just three decades ago!
> Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes? Yes, there always are
> some crackpots around. Tell me, have you ever heard of them
> outside of the "flat earth" thing? How influential do you think
> they were? As influential as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Thomas Aquinas,
> Augustine, Dante?
And do you think future historians will remember Gish, Hovind, Ham, or Chick
as influential? Probably not. Not even if you still have the statistics
on-hand that reveal a full half of the modern US population as tract-reading
creationists.
> Have you ever looked at the essay on the subject of the legend
> of belief in a flat earth in S.J. Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack"?
No I haven't. I came into this topic with only a layman's impression
remember?
Aron-Ra
Michael L. Siemon
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
+ In fact, it is sometimes said that the reformation was at least in
+ part a reaction against the church's liberal handling of new ideas
+ and scholarship. Some of the popes immediately prior to the
+ reformation were rather hard to distinguish from secular rulers,
+ and were significant patrons of the arts and the sciences.
The secular rulership (and the coils of politics attendant on
that) was definitely part of the mix: Luther's reaction to the
indulgences business was pious horror at Clintonesque wheeling-
and-dealing by heavily political popes. I sympathize with Luther,
but also (with Erasmus) feel that maybe there was an overreaction.
The Reformation led to a rather anti-intellectual (or maybe better,
"politically correct" intellectual) Counter-Reformation, and that
to Enlightenment opposition, the chaos of the French Revolution --
and this time _truly_ anti-intellectual reactions by a Church that
tried to regain control of local education. The 19th century gave
lots of reasons for "progressive" people to be horrified at the
Catholic jockeying for power at any cost. I would count the late
19th century as one of the nadirs of the Church in Europe. But
if the reaction to Catholic reactionaries is to invent propaganda
of an almost Nazi cynicism, I'm agin it.
+ The reformation marks the major point at which religion began to
+ be perceived as in conflict with secular science, and the counter
+ reformation marks a significant step backwards of the same kind
+ within the roman church. The contrasting experiences of Copernicus
+ and Gallileo are due in part to Gallileo's own abrasive personality,
+ but also to this change within the church.
+
+ I'm not an expert on this area; simply recounting a perspective
+ which I've seen in some books; most notably "Sleepwalkers" by
+ Arthur Koestler (1959), which is about the revolution in
+ cosmology and the parts player by Copernicus, Kepler, and
+ Gallileo.
Kepler had, if I am not mistaken, far more problems with Protestants
than with Catholics.
Aron-Ra
>
>
> "Michael L. Siemon" wrote:
> > In article <3B6F8C9C...@rcn.com>, Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com>
> > + Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>
> > + > 4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if
not, he
> > + > needs
> > + > to produce an example".
>
> > + > I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two
illustrations of
>
> > + Where have you cited a "journal"?
>
> > + I missed such a post and can't find any reference to such.
> > + Google doesn't seem to have it right now.
>
> > See Chris Ho-Stuart's note in a different branch of this thread.
> > The quote is another late 19th century, unfounded, prejudicial bit
> > of bogus atheist (or possibly, merely anti-Catholic) invention,
> > that the vaunted skeptical minds of atheists repeat with as stupid
> > a disregard for critical thought as the kind of mindless religion
> > they think they have "escaped" from. Fegh.
>
> My point was directly to the context of having repeatedly
> referenced Magellan's journal. Aron-Ra had not previously
> said anything about a journal but makes a pretex that he
> had. The source Chris provides does not imply a journal.
> It seems to me that reference to a journal is a completely
> new invention of Aron-Ra.
So now I'm stupid, silly, wholly baseless, ignorant, biased, and a liar
besides? What is it? My breath? Why am I catching so much shit here?
Damn, but you're a bunch of holier-than-thou little bitches any more. What
happened to this group? And when did they turn it a Church bridge club?
If the journal is a product of my own mind, it is unintentional. I remember
reading only one site months ago that cited (one of?) his journals. But I
remeber that as having some sort of title too. Not that it matters, since
it seems that this journal was an assumption on the part of someone trying
to conceive of the only source Ingersoll could have had. But I can't find
anything on the net to imply that Magellan ever wrote anything directly. I
searched and searched and tried to remember what that one reference cited
before I remembered a journal. One possible source for that still-forgotten
title could have been a titled biography written by someone who knew him.
But I think that if that line were there, I would have found a more specific
reference by now.
> I've searched for the quote in English, Spanish and
> Portugese. Interestingly it seems to have less variants
> in English. In so doing, I've yet to find a reference
> to it in Magellan's journal.
I stuck to English. That was the language I originally saw it in. But
there are so many different references no longer available, that I gave up.
I still find that odd, because all the other quotes from most of these
places are easily verifiable. I honestly thought this would be too.
(shrugs)
Aron-Ra
Chris Ho-Stuart
> + The reformation marks the major point at which religion began to
> + be perceived as in conflict with secular science, and the counter
> + reformation marks a significant step backwards of the same kind
> + within the roman church. The contrasting experiences of Copernicus
> + and Gallileo are due in part to Gallileo's own abrasive personality,
> + but also to this change within the church.
> +
> + I'm not an expert on this area; simply recounting a perspective
> + which I've seen in some books; most notably "Sleepwalkers" by
> + Arthur Koestler (1959), which is about the revolution in
> + cosmology and the parts player by Copernicus, Kepler, and
> + Gallileo.
>
> Kepler had, if I am not mistaken, far more problems with Protestants
> than with Catholics.
Yes, he did; but to be fair the fact that he was himself a
Protestant is at least a part of the reason for this. Conversely,
Galileo, being a Catholic, had far more problems with Catholics
than with Protestants.
Cheers -- Chris
Aron-Ra
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:070820010836055279%m...@panix.com...
I am new to this topic. I've been lied to my whole life and don't know what
to believe. This is the best place to go for learned unbiased honest
answers that I can actually confirm. That is what I asked for repeatedly,
is it not? Yet you still slander me ad nauseum and try to loose calumnies
like those above. Clearly, they do not apply to me.
But as for who is blindly reciting stupid biased prejudiced reactionary
rhetoric without critical thought......
Aron-Ra
Michael L. Siemon
+ In talk.origins Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
+ > In article <3b70...@news.qut.edu.au>, Chris Ho-Stuart
+ > <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
+ [snip]
+ > + The reformation marks the major point at which religion began to
+ > + be perceived as in conflict with secular science, and the counter
+ > + reformation marks a significant step backwards of the same kind
+ > + within the roman church. The contrasting experiences of Copernicus
+ > + and Gallileo are due in part to Gallileo's own abrasive personality,
+ > + but also to this change within the church.
+ > +
+ > + I'm not an expert on this area; simply recounting a perspective
+ > + which I've seen in some books; most notably "Sleepwalkers" by
+ > + Arthur Koestler (1959), which is about the revolution in
+ > + cosmology and the parts player by Copernicus, Kepler, and
+ > + Gallileo.
+ >
+ > Kepler had, if I am not mistaken, far more problems with Protestants
+ > than with Catholics.
+
+ Yes, he did; but to be fair the fact that he was himself a
+ Protestant is at least a part of the reason for this. Conversely,
+ Galileo, being a Catholic, had far more problems with Catholics
+ than with Protestants.
An interesting observation. I believe it has considerable merit!
Aron-Ra
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3B703DD0...@research.bell-labs.com...
My grandmother believed that the Earth was the largest thing in the
universe. She also seemed to believe that the other planets were alive
somehow. I tried to tell her about Jupiter and its red spot. And she said
"I hope it don't reach out and git us".
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
Looks like another flat Earth with a firmament to me. Remember all those
illustrations are of a flat plane with a dome over it to represent the
firmament. If that blue ball is supposed to be the Earth, why is it pastel?
Is the garden its sitting supposed to be Heaven? Honestly, a couple of days
ago I would have presented this same picture to you to support my side.
Aron-Ra
Chris Ho-Stuart
> news:3B702113...@rcn.com...
>>
>>
>> "Michael L. Siemon" wrote:
>>
>>
>> > + > 4. "Aron-Ra is a sucker if _that's_ the image he's thinking of; if
> not, he
>> > + > needs
>> > + > to produce an example".
>>
>> > + > I did, repeatedly. Ferdinand Magellan's journal and two
> illustrations of
>>
>> > + Where have you cited a "journal"?
>>
>> > + I missed such a post and can't find any reference to such.
>> > + Google doesn't seem to have it right now.
>>
>> > See Chris Ho-Stuart's note in a different branch of this thread.
>> > The quote is another late 19th century, unfounded, prejudicial bit
>> > of bogus atheist (or possibly, merely anti-Catholic) invention,
>> > that the vaunted skeptical minds of atheists repeat with as stupid
>> > a disregard for critical thought as the kind of mindless religion
>> > they think they have "escaped" from. Fegh.
>>
>> referenced Magellan's journal. Aron-Ra had not previously
>> said anything about a journal but makes a pretex that he
>> had. The source Chris provides does not imply a journal.
>> It seems to me that reference to a journal is a completely
>> new invention of Aron-Ra.
>
> So now I'm stupid, silly, wholly baseless, ignorant, biased, and a liar
> besides? What is it? My breath? Why am I catching so much shit here?
You are inventing more shit that you actually receive.
Wade does not call you any of these things above: he simply
states that the reference to a journel is a completely new
invention of yours.
That seems the likely explanation to me as well.
He has called you "ignorant" and "biased" in other posts,
but not "liar" or "stupid". Harsh, I know: but do you disagree?
It is quite possible that some web page attributes the bogus
Magellan quote to a journal: but I have never seen it;
and I made a major search of this sometime ago trying
to track down the origin of the quote.
I am finding the most interesting aspect of this thread
is not the substance: it the social and personal aspects
of the exchange, and the dynamic of conflict.
It looks to me like you repeated a quote which you found widely
used on the web. Then you copped various pejoratives by those who
have good reason to think the quote bogus: although I suspect many
of those were unaware of the actual origins of the quote. I also
recognized it as bogus well before I found the source.
You reacted strongly (understandably) in defence of your using
such a well known quote, but in doing so spoke of a journal. You
can give no reference to a journal, and speak rather vaguely of
having remembered some page somewhere mentioning a journal.
I guess that your memory is playing tricks on you. It is quite
possible that someone else invented the idea of a journal;
but -- no offense intended -- I see no reason at all for
preferring the idea that someone else invented it to the
idea that you invented it. This kind of mistake is common,
and it does not mean that the person who first mentioned
a journal (whether it be you or someone else) is a bad person.
> Damn, but you're a bunch of holier-than-thou little bitches any more. What
> happened to this group? And when did they turn it a Church bridge club?
Nothing happened. The group has always been like this, I think.
You are in the unfortunate position of experiencing the kinds
of scorn usually poured on creationists; and part of your
reaction against that has been to overstate your own position,
and to inflate the extent of the negative rhetoric. This also
is common in this group.
Wade has used terms like "ignorant" and "biased" in respect of your
position in this thread, though not "liar" or "stupid". I'd endorse
that; but I recognize that I also have areas of ignorance and
bias. No offense is intended. Think on it for 24 hours and you
might even agree.
talk.origins is sometimes a rough forum. You've been a rough
player in your own time as well. I don't think that is totally
a bad thing; calm and reasoned responses to creationist nonsense
can sometimes give the misleading impression that the creationist
position is worth taking seriously; and they also take longer to
write. Same goes for responses to various other kinds of nonsense.
This can be painful for those on the receiving end; but with some
shame I admit to reading often with malicious appreciation.
You have a huge advantage over the creationists however: and this
is reflected in how quickly you assimilate and recognize new
information running counter to previously held opinions. That
you had to put up with some shit in the process is not fair;
but it is life. Michael has already apologised for some of his
rhetoric; and Wade I think has not actually said anything that
would require an apology.
You are not, as a result of some unfortunate gaffs in this thread,
going to be labelled forever after; unless you choose to persist
compaints about harsh treatment.
Take a deep breath: you'll be okay.
Best wishes -- Chris
Brian M. Scott
>> >Do you have any more than your opinion to support this?
>> It's common knowledge amongst historians and anyone with the slightest
>> knowledge of the period. Bede (ca.700 CE) knew that the earth was
>> more or less spherical; in the 15th c. every educated person would
>> have known as much.
>Gosh. That must have been dozens of people!
Yes. Many, many, many dozens. You vastly underestimate the
intellectual life of the late Middle Ages.
Of 116 male witnesses who gave evidence in the consistory courts in
the reign of Edward IV, between the years 1467 and 1476, 48 (40%) were
recorded as literate, which probably means that they could read a
little Latin; it's likely that they could read rather more English.
These men were a cross-section of London lay society, save that they
included no professional men (lawyers, physicians and surgeons,
scriveners, and schoolmasters), inclusion of whom would have raised
the percentage. (In other words, we're talking here about hosiers,
ironmongers, shearmen, haberdashers, and so on.) In the late 15th c.
the London goldsmiths had a rule prohibiting their members from taking
an apprentice who could not read and write. (Sylvia L. Thrupp, The
Merchant Class of Medieval London)
From over in Italy we have the 'Treviso Arithmetic' of 1478. It
begins (in English translation):
Here beginneth a Practica, very helpful to all who
have to do with that commercial art commonly
known as the abacus.
I have often been asked by certain youths in whom
I have much interest, and who look forward to
mercantile pursuits, to put into writing the fundamental
principles of arithmetic, commonly called the abacus.
The author goes on to explain how to carry out the ordinary
operations of arithmetic with Hindu-Arabic numerals and how to solve
many common types of commercial problems, e.g.:
If a hundredweight of cotton is worth 36 ducats,
10 grossi, 10 pizoli, what is the amount to be
deducted for 8348 pounds, tare being 6 pounds
per hundred, and tret 2 ducats per hundredweight?
All told it's a substantial treatise, amounting to 62 folios. (Franz
J. Swetz, Capitalism & Arithmetic) It and others like it were written
because there was a demand for them, which implies readers.
The point is that there was a substantial commercial class that
enjoyed a fairly high rate of literacy. One could also point to the
considerable and growing market for fiction, histories (not that the
two were always clearly distinguished), and of course religious
writings. Sure, the vast majority of Europeans were peasants, but in
absolute numbers there were a lot of literate Europeans in the 15th c.
(including even some of those peasants).
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Aron-Ra
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3b70...@news.qut.edu.au...
Yes. His very first comment was that I was "pretending to infer things from
artwork". But I didn't have to infer at all. Bosch painted a disk and
titled it Earth. What is there to infer? And is there another reason that
even he might have painted something like that if he didn't personally
believe it? Even without Ingersoll's attribution to Magellan, my initial
comments do not warrant such arrogance as his first comment, *nor* his shrug
away to some link rather than to state his point like an intellectual.
Then he claimed to be trying to spare my dignity by noting my "lack of
scholarship" and calling me a zealot. Ironies all over again. And that was
followed by my "entrenched an cultivated ignorance rather than a natural and
naive ignorance".
But no, in a court of law, I couldn't say that he said I was stupid. *And*
he didn't say I was a liar, but he came as close to both as he could.
But it really isn't what was said, and its certainly not that my feelings
were hurt or anything like that. It is the immense irony on display here.
I asked for illustrations of a spherical globe and I got several lovely
peices which could easily depict a flat one, but couldn't possibly support a
sphere.
I asked for quotes that state with clarity that the Earth is round. But I
received (at first) a dozen or so "liars" as proof that those lies were
never told, the Bible included.
To condemn my apparently unique ignorance as inexcuseable, I was given a
list of nearly every respected historian to shape the current state of
learning in this country, proving that I am hardly unusual and certainly
excuseable.
To prove that the Pope knew the world was round before Columbus, a reference
was given that was dated after Columbus returned.
When I suggested a few crackpots in a platygaeanist movement similar to
modern creationism, I was presented with a list of a few such cranks that
did exist as proof that they didn't.
When I asked for first-hand evidence as opposed to heresay or opinion, I was
accused of arguing like a creationist. I was a zealot when trying to be
objective.
And when I said that I didn't believe the Colombus myth, I was jeered for
adhering to it. And when I stated resentment at having been taught that
myth in school, I was condemned as if I were spreading that lie.
And then in the utmost irony of the whole list, somebody said his irony
meter went off on me.
I realize by now that no one is going to see anything of this from my
perspective, no matter how obvious these all seem to me. But each curt
allegation of misrepresentation and bias and prejudice was accused of me
with far more of each of those flaws than I've ever had.
Not to ignore those who finally did speak up and provide first-hand clearly
global maps and distinctly spherical descriptions in text. As well as
hunting down the source of Magellan's alleged quote while I was looking for
a journal I honestly thought existed. All of which, I appreciate. And I
don't know why they weren't presented first.
I've yet to see a spherical Earth in any of the artwork, but I no longer
need one.
> Take a deep breath: you'll be okay.
Never needed to. I think I've kept a pretty cool attitude through all of
this.
My friends accuse me of blind bitter cynicism.
But they say its an upbeat form of blind bitter cynicism.
But then, contrary to other's assertions, I was never trying to spread any
"atheist lies", nor protect any chosen belief, nor any of those other stupid
assertions.
I had an idea. And I wanted to discuss it to see how accurate it was.
My modified conclusion is as follows:
1. Magellan never said that. (too bad. I liked that quote)
2. The Church did embrace the idea of a globe, albeit a Geocentrist one
still orbited by Helios' horsepower.
3. The "snow-globe" image of a flat-world with the domed firmament still
prevailed in Medieval art.
4. The Church never taught that the world was flat......intentionally. But
some indeviduals obviously believed that it was, largely because of what
they were taught by the church.
5. The Bible implies that the Earth is flat.
6. And a few more literate folk knew better than that (Bosch?) and still
held out, either for religious reasons or dimentia.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3b70c879....@enews.newsguy.com...
I must say I'm pleasantly surprised by those numbers. I mean, look around.
What percentage do you see currently?
Aron-Ra
John R. Owens
It might be worth pointing out that your earliest date, 1467, was one
year before Gutenberg died. Any idea how much different things were,
say, one century prior?
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3b70...@news.qut.edu.au...
>> He has called you "ignorant" and "biased" in other posts,
>> but not "liar" or "stupid". Harsh, I know: but do you disagree?
>
[snip reasons]
OK... I propose to drop that subject unless asked point blank<
and stick to substance hereafter.
[snip]
> I had an idea. And I wanted to discuss it to see how accurate it was.
> My modified conclusion is as follows:
>
> 1. Magellan never said that. (too bad. I liked that quote)
> 2. The Church did embrace the idea of a globe, albeit a Geocentrist one
> still orbited by Helios' horsepower.
> 3. The "snow-globe" image of a flat-world with the domed firmament still
> prevailed in Medieval art.
The word "prevailed" is, I think, too strong. The mythical image was
used, as were other images, as far as I can see. All representations
of the earth as a whole were (IMO) stylized or symbolic; this includes
globular representations as well. None were direct representations.
However, I am not not an art expert.
> 4. The Church never taught that the world was flat......intentionally. But
> some indeviduals obviously believed that it was, largely because of what
> they were taught by the church.
Do you have any examples at all to support this?
The two examples given previously (Cosmas and Lactantius) lived
over a thousand years before the time of Columbus; and they were
out of step with the church even in their own time. They were not
parroting church teaching -- the church has never at any time in
its history officially taught a flat earth. They were thinkers in
their own right who sought (without success) to persuade the church
of their own idiosyncratic views.
Lactantius was arguably orthodox in most respects. Cosmas was
distinctly unusual; "isolated crank" is (IMO) a reasonable
description for Cosmas. Encyclopedia Britannica calls him
"idiosyncratic", which is kinder.
The claim that the church (as a church: not a couple of isolated
clerics) ever taught a flat earth is something I have never seen
any evidence for at all. Zilch.
The church did not teach a flat earth then for the same reason
it does not teach a flat earth now.
> 5. The Bible implies that the Earth is flat.
Possibly. That might be worth discussing; but actually the bible
is not particularly concerned to teach such physical cosmology.
The Genesis account, starting from a sea, then divided to waters
above and below with land in the middle, is generally considered
to be derived from Babylonian cosmology. The point of Genesis one
is not to defend those physical details, but rather to address
head on the polytheism of surrounding cultures, and express the
Israelite monotheistic world view. It does not plainly say "flat";
leaving an out for those who deny the connection of the bible with
the cultures and physical world view of its own time.
Other references -- such as the circle of Isaiah, or the sky-tent
in other passages -- are brief and poetic in character; not focussed
on presenting a picture of the earth but rather using imagery of
the time to present ideas about God.
I agree that the bible generally assumes a flat earth without any
great question, in the few places where any shape at all could be
seen as being implied, and in this sense it implies the earth is
flat: but the character of the few references are such that it is
not hard to see them as poetic.
> 6. And a few more literate folk knew better than that (Bosch?) and still
> held out, either for religious reasons or dimentia.
I do not accept that any good reason has been given for thinking
Bosch had flat earth views. His art is highly stylised; and not
intended as accurate physical representations.
I am unaware of any examples of holds outs for a flat earth
view in the late medieval period. I don't deny the possibility;
but I have simply never seen any examples cited. I have seen a
few examples from a millennium earlier, as well as Cosmas
and Lactantius mentioned above; a handful in all.
Felicitations -- Chris
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>Yes. His very first comment was that I was "pretending to infer things from
>artwork". But I didn't have to infer at all.
Of course you did: *any* interpretation of an artwork involves one or
more inferences, which in turn are based on assumptions. You made the
assumption that the painting was intended to illustrate physical
reality and inferred that Bosch believed that the earth was disk-like.
> Bosch painted a disk and
>titled it Earth. What is there to infer? And is there another reason that
>even he might have painted something like that if he didn't personally
>believe it?
Of course. Especially in the case of Bosch, for Pete's sake. The
painting in question was specifically illustrating the third day of
the OT creation myth; I see no reason to assume that he saw it as
anything but a symbolic representation.
[...]
Brian