CathInfo.com

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I know I'm opening a can of worms by saying this, but I find it difficult to take Holy Scripture literally in scientific matters. Take for example this passage from Genesis 1, 14:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

On first glance, this sounds like a description of Sun and Moon in the poetic style of Genesis by a terrestrial observer. As we now know, the Moon is only reflecting light and isn't a light source per se, so how can this passage be taken literally? The same problem applies to all the other arguments regarding flat Earth, the Earth dome, Geocentrism and so on.

1. We use the Douay-Rheims around here, son.
I haven't memorized all of Scripture, but certain phrases I know pretty well. Not saying it changes the sense of what you quoted, but I can tell it's not Douay-Rheims and that IS a problem.

2. You're saying that you don't take Scripture literally, even though all Scripture is required to be interpreted that way (unless you're a Modernist). Some passages have a figurative meaning as well, but that doesn't overwrite the literal meaning. You know how everyone (even smart people) LOVE the word "literally" since the mid 2010's? Just sprinkle "literally" throughout the Scripture text, and that's how you're supposed to interpret it.

3. Last, but certainly not least, you cite "the moon only reflecting light" as an example of Scripture ERRING -- even though that is part of the modern, Freemasonic, NASA cosmology and NOT part of Flat Earth. I'm no Flat Earth expert (I'm just starting to look into it, thanks to recent threads on CathInfo) but I've already learned that FE teaches that the moon is some kind of disc producing its own light.

If you ask me, that's a point for Flat Earth right there. Scripture can't err. Any cosmology which tends to erode confidence and faith in the Scriptures (Word of God) has to be from the devil.

Some say "who cares? It doesn't matter!" but right here you're proving just how much it DOES matter. Someone believing in Flat Earth would (according to you) be much more comfortable with Scripture on this specific point.

Which will help you save your soul: having tons of doubts about God, religion, and Scripture -- or the opposite?

4. "As we now know" - be careful with that. Official consensus, I mean. Do you REALLY know it? Have you measured it? Or are you taking NASA, the government, or other authorities on faith? Keep in mind: almost everything believed by a mainstream "normie" in 2021 is false. People think throwing a surgical mask over their face prevents disease in any way, or helps more than it hurts! They think a few ragheads with box cutters and amateur pilots precision-flew 2 jet planes into skyscrapers and caused them to collapse into their own footprint at freefall speed. They think we have vaccines to thank for longer lifespans and certain diseases being wiped out (short version: no, it was improvements in hygiene and sanitation). They think we went to the Moon several times in the 70's -- haven't been back since -- and just happened to "lose" ALL the evidence for the trip, as well as the technology to get there. Don't make me laugh!

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

1. We use the Douay-Rheims around here, son.
I haven't memorized all of Scripture, but certain phrases I know pretty well. Not saying it changes the sense of what you quoted, but I can tell it's not Douay-Rheims and that IS a problem.

You're right, I didn't manage to find a Douay-Rheims quickly. The sense stays the same though, I know this passage from memory. Either way, here's the equivalent from Douay-Rheims: http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=13-#x

2. You're saying that you don't take Scripture literally, even though all Scripture is required to be interpreted that way (unless you're a Modernist). Some passages have a figurative meaning as well, but that doesn't overwrite the literal meaning. You know how everyone (even smart people) LOVE the word "literally" since the mid 2010's? Just sprinkle "literally" throughout the Scripture text, and that's how you're supposed to interpret it.

Only the magisterium can interpet scripture correctly. Atheists and critics beat evangelicals round the head with problematic literal Bible quotes and interpretations all the time.

3. Last, but certainly not least, you cite "the moon only reflecting light" as an example of Scripture ERRING -- even though that is part of the modern, Freemasonic, NASA cosmology and NOT part of Flat Earth. I'm no Flat Earth expert (I'm just starting to look into it, thanks to recent threads on CathInfo) but I've already learned that FE teaches that the moon is some kind of disc producing its own light.

If you ask me, that's a point for Flat Earth right there. Scripture can't err. Any cosmology which tends to erode confidence and faith in the Scriptures (Word of God) has to be from the devil.

Some say "who cares? It doesn't matter!" but right here you're proving just how much it DOES matter. Someone believing in Flat Earth would (according to you) be much more comfortable with Scripture on this specific point.

Which will help you save your soul: having tons of doubts about God, religion, and Scripture -- or the opposite?

I didn't cite it as an example of scripture erring. One could at most say the description is not precise - because the moon is not a light source. Perhaps I'm indeed reading too much into that passage.

What I'm doing is questioning the sanity of my beliefs. And on a related not I've come to the conclusion that Flat Earth is pretty insane belief for a variety of reasons.

4. "As we now know" - be careful with that. Official consensus, I mean. Do you REALLY know it? Have you measured it? Or are you taking NASA, the government, or other authorities on faith? Keep in mind: almost everything believed by a mainstream "normie" in 2021 is false. People think throwing a surgical mask over their face prevents disease in any way, or helps more than it hurts! They think a few ragheads with box cutters and amateur pilots precision-flew 2 jet planes into skyscrapers and caused them to collapse into their own footprint at freefall speed. They think we have vaccines to thank for longer lifespans and certain diseases being wiped out (short version: no, it was improvements in hygiene and sanitation). They think we went to the Moon several times in the 70's -- haven't been back since -- and just happened to "lose" ALL the evidence for the trip, as well as the technology to get there. Don't make me laugh!

What I do know is that the Moon is upside down in Australia. That doesn't work in a FE model. You can also closely observe the Moon even with amateur telescopes. Also yes, I'm trusting authorities when it makes sense to do so. Man-made objects have been confirmed to be on its surface by multiple sources. We have loads of footage from the Moon surface taken by unmanned probes. It's a solid celestial body.

The entire post from Lad to which you are here responding does exactly what you are telling him to do.  I may not agree with you on this issue, but I find it very difficult to believe you are so unfathomably stupid that you cannot even see what is plain to ALL -- Lad already showed Dubay was into FE way before 2015. 

As can be found on his website, Dubay sells his books on lulu.com:

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/ericdubay

"The Flat Earth Conspiracy" is of 11/2014.
"The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)" is of 11/2013.

You can find the latter book on libgen.is. It has a chapter "Geocentric Cosmology", where Dubay defends globe earth geocentrism. See attachment.