Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Gray2023 on April 29, 2024, 12:49:38 PM
-
Yesterday I saw what I thought was a "shooting star" and two "satellites". I always thought that the atmosphere is where we breathe and past that there is no oxygen (space). I thought that the space between is the firmament. I thought a "shooting star" was something passing from space, through the firmament, to the atmosphere and burning up. That is how my brain rationalized the Bible. Do you flat earth believers have an explanation for what I saw?
-
https://youtu.be/7vgqieNcSl0?si=UOoqqKI9ISM1xnkv
-
Here is a picture I took from my phone. The lights came from the horizon and disappeared over head. I looked it up and it was said they were space x satellites. Can someone explain?
-
Yesterday I saw what I thought was a "shooting star" and two "satellites". I always thought that the atmosphere is where we breathe and past that there is no oxygen (space). I thought that the space between is the firmament. I thought a "shooting star" was something passing from space, through the firmament, to the atmosphere and burning up. That is how my brain rationalized the Bible. Do you flat earth believers have an explanation for what I saw?
Your brain rationalized the Bible by imposing onto it the modern cosmology that was drilled into it. All we see is a light passing through the sky. Even today, if you see a light moving through the sky, it could be any kind of craft. Can you tell just by looking at it how far it is away from you? If planes fly through the sky at night, they also look like little lights. Are they too flying through "space". Reportedly the Starlink satellites are the size of an office desk and are allegedly between 200 and 300 miles away, and have no exterior illumination. So how can you see something the size of an office desk from 200+ miles away at night when it has no source of light? Maybe they're not what Elon et al. claim they are. Have you ever thought about that?
Somehow in your mind, you think this is proof that "space" exists, because you saw a light moving through the sky? That speaks volumes about the fact that you're clearly applying your own confirmation bias onto what you saw.
Lights passing through the sky could be anything, things moving through the firmament, various aircraft (altitude and size unknown and unknowable from your vantage point on the ground), something with an electric charge moving across the firmament, or some charged object, etc. etc.
-
That speaks volumes about the fact that you're clearly applying your own confirmation bias onto what you saw.
At least you never do the latter (the former being speaking volumes). ::)
-
Your brain rationalized the Bible by imposing onto it the modern cosmology that was drilled into it. All we see is a light passing through the sky. Even today, if you see a light moving through the sky, it could be any kind of craft. Can you tell just by looking at it how far it is away from you? If planes fly through the sky at night, they also look like little lights. Are they too flying through "space". Reportedly the Starlink satellites are the size of an office desk and are allegedly between 200 and 300 miles away, and have no exterior illumination. So how can you see something the size of an office desk from 200+ miles away at night when it has no source of light? Maybe they're not what Elon et al. claim they are. Have you ever thought about that?
Somehow in your mind, you think this is proof that "space" exists, because you saw a light moving through the sky? That speaks volumes about the fact that you're clearly applying your own confirmation bias onto what you saw.
Lights passing through the sky could be anything, things moving through the firmament, various aircraft (altitude and size unknown and unknowable from your vantage point on the ground), something with an electric charge moving across the firmament, or some charged object, etc. etc.
But that does not answer what those lights were. Do you know? You have many questions, but no answers either. I assume this chained of lights, not one light but several in a row like the picture shows. I assume I saw them because they were reflecting the light of the sun. Have you ever seen this? It is creepy when you do, what could they be and who is controlling them?
-
But that does not answer what those lights were. Do you know? You have many questions, but no answers either. I assume this chained of lights, not one light but several in a row like the picture shows. I assume I saw them because they were reflecting the light of the sun. Have you ever seen this? It is creepy when you do, what could they be and who is controlling them?
No, I don't know, and neither do you (unless you accept what they tell you). Government has all kinds of (mostly classified tech) ... that's what most UFOs/UAPs actually are.
-
I like the trees in the pictures.
Is it in your backyard?
-
I like the trees in the pictures.
Is it in your backyard?
No. I was at the Shrine of St. Anthony in Maryland. Their grounds are always open. They have outdoor stations, and other things. It was built pre vatican 2.
It is NO now. The grounds are beautiful to walk.
https://www.shrineofstanthony.org/
-
No. I was at the Shrine of St. Anthony in Maryland. Their grounds are always open. They have outdoor stations, and other things. It was built pre vatican 2.
It is NO now. The grounds are beautiful to walk.
https://www.shrineofstanthony.org/
The buildings look like your typical Novus Ordo complex.
There are not many pictures of the grounds in the website, but I'll take your word for it.
-
But that does not answer what those lights were. Do you know? You have many questions, but no answers either.
Most heavenly bodies can't be seen in any detail with the human eye; they require a telescope. Given the fact that there are (literally) 1000s and 1000s of low-earth-orbit satellites in the sky, it's hard to tell if something is a machine or a star.
Philosophically speaking, how can one believe that space is millions of miles away, yet still believe they can see space object with their own eyes? It makes no sense. (This isn't directed at you, personally).
-
No, I don't know, and neither do you (unless you accept what they tell you). Government has all kinds of (mostly classified tech) ... that's what most UFOs/UAPs actually are.
It is just that I am trying to determine what I am seeing in the night sky. I am a visual person. I know what the solar system model is for heliocentric and geocentric. I cannot visualize what the solar system model is for a flat earth. I have tried to ask for a model representation of a flat earth, because I don't have time to try and figure out how to find one, but It seems that I can't get the people on here to show me one either. I am sorry if I am not being clear, but all I want is to see a model of this flat earth with the sections of atmosphere, planets, and space.
-
It is just that I am trying to determine what I am seeing in the night sky.
What your seeing are lights moving through the sky. We don't know what it is that you're seeing or what we're seeing to cause these lights. We can only hypothesize or else accept the claims of modern science about what they are, in cases where they do try to tell us or think they know themselves. What you saw in that string of lights appears to have been artificial, but what it is we won't know. Government has tons of hidden/classified technology that they'll never let us know about.
-
It is just that I am trying to determine what I am seeing in the night sky. I am a visual person. I know what the solar system model is for heliocentric and geocentric. I cannot visualize what the solar system model is for a flat earth. I have tried to ask for a model representation of a flat earth, because I don't have time to try and figure out how to find one, but It seems that I can't get the people on here to show me one either. I am sorry if I am not being clear, but all I want is to see a model of this flat earth with the sections of atmosphere, planets, and space.
I like this one:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg/1200px-Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg.png)
-
Reportedly the Starlink satellites are the size of an office desk and are allegedly between 200 and 300 miles away, and have no exterior illumination. So how can you see something the size of an office desk from 200+ miles away at night when it has no source of light? Maybe they're not what Elon et al. claim they are. Have you ever thought about that?
Supposedly they reflect the light of the sun. I've never seen them, but there is video of them traveling in tandem, like a train going through the sky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgysWWwESfU&ab_channel=ViralVideoLab (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgysWWwESfU&ab_channel=ViralVideoLab)
Light such as this being 200-300 miles away isn't so outlandish. The red blinking lights you see on TV towers, which can be 2000 feet tall, are about the size of a shoebox (albeit with internal illumination) and can easily be seen at night 10 or more miles away, if you have a straight shot from your location to the transmitter. An office desk is several times larger than one of these lights (think office desk versus shoebox).
-
But that does not answer what those lights were. Do you know? You have many questions, but no answers either. I assume this chained of lights, not one light but several in a row like the picture shows. I assume I saw them because they were reflecting the light of the sun. Have you ever seen this? It is creepy when you do, what could they be and who is controlling them?
No idea what that row of lights are, but when we see a shooting star, that's an angel running an errand for God - that's what we were told as kids and has been satisfactory for me ever since lol.
-
No idea what that row of lights are, but when we see a shooting star, that's an angel running an errand for God - that's what we were told as kids and has been satisfactory for me ever since lol.
Works for me. :laugh1:
Seriously, though, I do believe that the "Star of Bethlehem" was not some natural phenomenon as various rationalists try to make it out to be. We read that the Wise Men could use the star to locate precisely the place where Our Lord had been born, the very manger. There's no way a normal "star" could be used to pinpoint a location that exactly. I believe they were following some angelic vision. Recall that the term "star" did not have the connotations back then of "a huge sun millions of miles away", but was merely a term for a "lesser light" (vs. the sun or the moon).
-
I know what the solar system model is for heliocentric and geocentric. I cannot visualize what the solar system model is for a flat earth.
The simplest way to understand FE is that the solar system still exists, but it's much, much closer to us, because it's within the firmament. Instead of a star being "millions of light years away", it's probably only 500-1000 miles away. Far enough that the naked eye cannot see them in daylight; but close enough that their lights can be seen at night. The sun is not bigger than earth; but much, much smaller and inside our atmosphere. The sun moves above the earth, from east to west, on a daily basis. Because it's smaller, it does not give light in all directions, but is more focused, like a spotlight. Thus when it's spotlight turns, and as it physically moves away from us, it has the appearance of "setting".
-
The sun moves above the earth, from east to west, on a daily basis. Because it's smaller, it does not give light in all directions, but is more focused, like a spotlight. Thus when it's spotlight turns, and as it physically moves away from us, it has the appearance of "setting".
And when it gets all the way west, how does it get back east again?
-
It might go underneath the earth (which Scripture tells us, is standing on 4 pillars). Or, the book of Enoch describes portals/doors in the "heavens" (i.e. high above, near the firmament) which angels open and close to control the weather and other things. I'm not sure.
-
Supposedly they reflect the light of the sun. I've never seen them, but there is video of them traveling in tandem, like a train going through the sky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgysWWwESfU&ab_channel=ViralVideoLab (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgysWWwESfU&ab_channel=ViralVideoLab)
Light such as this being 200-300 miles away isn't so outlandish. The red blinking lights you see on TV towers, which can be 2000 feet tall, are about the size of a shoebox (albeit with internal illumination) and can easily be seen at night 10 or more miles away, if you have a straight shot from your location to the transmitter. An office desk is several times larger than one of these lights (think office desk versus shoebox).
That is exactly what I saw. Accept they disappeared when they got to a certain point in the sky above my head. My assumption is that the sun could no longer reflect on them because the earth was casting a shadow on them. If the earth could cast a shadow then wouldn't that imply a globe earth?
-
Accept they disappeared when they got to a certain point in the sky above my head.
There's numerous reasons why these satellite lights could go off. If you could see them, that means they were low enough in the atmosphere for planes to fly. So the lights might have to be on, for plane safety reasons. Once the satellites rose higher than airplane traffic, the lights weren't needed anymore, so they shut off.
-
There's numerous reasons why these satellite lights could go off. If you could see them, that means they were low enough in the atmosphere for planes to fly. So the lights might have to be on, for plane safety reasons. Once the satellites rose higher than airplane traffic, the lights weren't needed anymore, so they shut off.
I see lights in the sky every night. These lights do not move very fast. I call them stars. What do you call them? If I can see these stars then "they are low enough in the atmosphere for planes to fly." Doesn't that then mean the stars are between the sun and the earth, wouldn't they cast shadows on the earth?
People who are in planes never talk about seeing satellites float by. Do you have examples of this?
I am just trying to make everything I see in the night sky fit into a flat earth idea. I am having trouble. The only explanation i get is that I have an established bias.
-
I see lights in the sky every night. These lights do not move very fast. I call them stars
If we were living 100 years ago, you'd be right. Every light in the sky would be either a star, comet, or planet.
But nowadays, with 1,000s and 1,000s of satellites in the sky (and more going up every day...Elon Musk and friends are building a satellite network to track every living thing), one cannot be sure what is a star or a human "twinkling thing".
wouldn't they cast shadows on the earth?
I don't know why stars don't cast shadows but this should happen on a flat or globe earth, so it's irrelevant to the flat earth topic.
-
It is just that I am trying to determine what I am seeing in the night sky. I am a visual person. I know what the solar system model is for heliocentric and geocentric. I cannot visualize what the solar system model is for a flat earth. I have tried to ask for a model representation of a flat earth, because I don't have time to try and figure out how to find one, but It seems that I can't get the people on here to show me one either. I am sorry if I am not being clear, but all I want is to see a model of this flat earth with the sections of atmosphere, planets, and space.
-
It might go underneath the earth (which Scripture tells us, is standing on 4 pillars). Or, the book of Enoch describes portals/doors in the "heavens" (i.e. high above, near the firmament) which angels open and close to control the weather and other things. I'm not sure.
Is the Book of Enoch in the Catholic Bible?
-
And when it gets all the way west, how does it get back east again?
It goes in circle. Look at a flat earth map, and circuмnavigate the globe east-west (which is the only way planes fly, for some reason). It would form a circle -- which happens every day. So yes, being able to sail around the earth or "circuмnavigate" poses 0 problem for flat earth model.
-
Is the Book of Enoch in the Catholic Bible?
No it is not.
Nevertheless, the better question is: why was Enoch disqualified? Some non-canonical books ("Apocrypha") are completely trustworthy, but the Catholic Church never ruled that they were "inspired by the Holy Ghost AND were always part of Scripture".
Let's just say "not chosen for the Canon of Scripture" doesn't mean "burn it with fire!". Think of all the non-Canonical books written by man (not the Holy Ghost) are praiseworthy to read: The Imitation of Christ, Intro to the Devout Life, the Summa Theologica, etc.
There is a huge variety among the Apocrypha: Some of the books are erroneous and filled with heresies. Others just didn't quite make the cut. Maybe they appeared too late, and the Church erred on the side of caution. Or maybe there was an issue with translations, and the Church couldn't de-tangle the mess. There are 99 reasons why a given book could have been excluded from the Canon. Heretical content is only one of them.
-
Works for me. :laugh1:
Seriously, though, I do believe that the "Star of Bethlehem" was not some natural phenomenon as various rationalists try to make it out to be. We read that the Wise Men could use the star to locate precisely the place where Our Lord had been born, the very manger. There's no way a normal "star" could be used to pinpoint a location that exactly. I believe they were following some angelic vision. Recall that the term "star" did not have the connotations back then of "a huge sun millions of miles away", but was merely a term for a "lesser light" (vs. the sun or the moon).
Just one more reason to embrace Flat Earth. Much easier for keeping the Faith, keeping both halves of your body on ONE side of the fence, not being divided. I'm sick of bending over backwards, feeling sheepish, feeling embarrassed, at verses like this in Scripture. There's no need to be! The supernatural exists, God created the world, he's ABOVE us (not underneath us if we're on the other side of the globe) and He and His angels control "the powers of heaven". He can make the sun stand still, dance in the sky, or make a bright light illuminate where the manger was. No problem.
If some of you want to try to "square the circle" and believe in the satanist's "outer space" paradigm (but NOT the Big Bang or Evolution that comes with it -- oh, no!) but also God and Creation -- go ahead. I can't stop you. But I'm warning you it's imprudent and unnecessary.
-
It is just that I am trying to determine what I am seeing in the night sky. I am a visual person. I know what the solar system model is for heliocentric and geocentric. I cannot visualize what the solar system model is for a flat earth.
I want to interject here that you are perfectly normal. You've been told since you were knee-high to a grasshopper that the earth is a ball. OF COURSE you're going to struggle to break out of that brainwashing programming. I would be absolutely shocked if you weren't struggling! It's really not easy. It's quite a feat when anyone breaks out of such pervasive, universal, reinforced programming.
We must be patient and compassionate when dealing with those of good will who struggle against the programming they've received A) for decades B) from all quarters and C) since they were 2 years old.
I will say this though: you won't break out of it without use of your Reason.
There are good videos out there that really helped me learn the truth.
9.7 GB -- a very large file!
https://www.cathinfo.com/files/flatearth.zip
-
No it is not.
Nevertheless, the better question is: why was Enoch disqualified? Some non-canonical books ("Apocrypha") are completely trustworthy, but the Catholic Church never ruled that they were "inspired by the Holy Ghost AND were always part of Scripture".
Let's just say "not chosen for the Canon of Scripture" doesn't mean "burn it with fire!". Think of all the non-Canonical books written by man (not the Holy Ghost) are praiseworthy to read: The Imitation of Christ, Intro to the Devout Life, the Summa Theologica, etc.
There is a huge variety among the Apocrypha: Some of the books are erroneous and filled with heresies. Others just didn't quite make the cut. Maybe they appeared too late, and the Church erred on the side of caution. Or maybe there was an issue with translations, and the Church couldn't de-tangle the mess. There are 99 reasons why a given book could have been excluded from the Canon. Heretical content is only one of them.
Indeed. I think that people misread a false dichtomy between being in Sacred Scripture and being fake or garbage. For inclusion in Sacred Scripture, something has to be inspired and have as its author the Holy Ghost. It's very possible that St. Paul, for instance, over his many years, wrote a TON of material, and many letters, outside of that which became Sacred Scripture. But not everything he ever wrote was inspired. If some such writing were found, it wouldn't mean that it was fake or that it was filled with errors. Nor would it mean that it was inspired, just because he wrote it. It simply means that he wasn't being inspired every single time he took pen to paper. Some early Fathers considered the First Epistle of Pope St. Clement I to have been inspired, part of Scripture. It didn't make the cut, the Church's decision under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But it is most certainly genuine and most certainly filled with truth. Just wasn't inspired, aka written, by the Holy Ghost. Book of Enoch is in a very similar position. Many Church Fathers believed that it should have been part of the Sacred Scriptures, and it was even directly quoted in the New Testament. It just didn't make the cut into Sacred Scripture because the Church did not discern that it was written or inspired by the Holy Ghost. But it could very possibly go back to Enoch (at least as an oral tradition), and could contain a lot of solid information derived from "primitive revelation", the first fullness of knowledge about the natural world in the possession of Adam and Eve. Certainly the Church Fathers held it to have some authority, even if it wasn't the direct authority of God inspiring. Lest you think oral tradition is unreliable, the Greek Epic Poem, The Iliad, was passed on for centuries between "bards" by oral tradition. It consisted of nearly 200,000 words, or about 12,000 pages (give or take, given page size), and The Odyseey was about 135,000 words. Both these were memorized at least by a bard (public perfomer / singer / story-teller) named Homer, though much of it likely predates him by centuries. Even in recent days they have found formerly-undiscovered tribes who had similar story-tellers who memorized stuff almost of the same magnitude. And for centuries and millennia, since there was no historical record about the city of Troy around which The Iliad revolved, it was dismissed as fiction ... until it was discovered by archaeologists. There's a lot of actual and real history there. Literacy has actually militated against our capacity to commit things to memory, and these Epic Poems used their meter and rhyme as mneumonic devices to help the bards remember them. So whenever I see modern "scholars" claim that, ah, this book wasn't written by Moses but rather centuries later, I find that to be a complete joke. Just because the first known MANUSCRIPTS they can find date to centuries later absolutely does not mean that there weren't either lost manuscripts or a reliable / memorized oral tradition. Pontifical Biblical Commission held that Catholics must accept the Tradition that the Pentateuch was writtten by Moses ... despite the scoffing of modern so-called / pseudo- scholars, who are just thinly-veiled atheists. By now, there are probably only a small handful of early-printed Douay Bibles floating around, but tons of copies, from those printed by TAN Books and many others. Let's say another few hundred years go by, and none of the early copies remain, for whatever reason, but archeologists uncover pages from a TAN books edition ... and claim that the Douy Rheims was written by some guy named Thomas Nelson in the 20th century. That's a perfect analogy with what these clowns are doing.
-
No it is not.
Nevertheless, the better question is: why was Enoch disqualified? Some non-canonical books ("Apocrypha") are completely trustworthy, but the Catholic Church never ruled that they were "inspired by the Holy Ghost AND were always part of Scripture".
Let's just say "not chosen for the Canon of Scripture" doesn't mean "burn it with fire!". Think of all the non-Canonical books written by man (not the Holy Ghost) are praiseworthy to read: The Imitation of Christ, Intro to the Devout Life, the Summa Theologica, etc.
There is a huge variety among the Apocrypha: Some of the books are erroneous and filled with heresies. Others just didn't quite make the cut. Maybe they appeared too late, and the Church erred on the side of caution. Or maybe there was an issue with translations, and the Church couldn't de-tangle the mess. There are 99 reasons why a given book could have been excluded from the Canon. Heretical content is only one of them.
Exactly. If I'm understanding matters correctly, the Church does not say that books outside the Canon were definitely not "the inspired Word of God", just that she was, at the end of the day, unable to proclaim infallibly that they were.
As I always say, Scripture is really just part of Tradition, the part that was canonized as being the true Word of God. Other books can be read with profit, and weighed against the analogia fidei. If they do agree with the analogia fidei, then they could have been inspired, but the Holy Ghost did not give the Church enough evidence to make that call. The Orthodox, and especially the Ethiopians, have extra books in their canons, and those books probably don't contain anything contrary to the Faith, again, the Catholic Church erred on the side of caution by not declaring them to be Sacred Scripture.