"And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
On Flat Earth, whilst I agree that community is a mega rabbit hole, full of erroneous dogmas and people who use contrarian takes to purposefully 'dunk their neighbour', I also have mercy on why people can start to make these assumptions, given the insane lies that come from NASA and the direct experience of earth and the sky we all have. ie. it looks and feels stationary, and water always finds its level.
I do not see the 'shape of the earth' as a primary topic, I do find it very interesting how taboo it is to challenge the prevailing model, and I like the quote from Stephen Hawking (in a somewhat rare moment of humility in respect to the boundaries of his field)
“Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe...the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest....If there are two models that both agree with observation, then one cannot say that one is more real than another."
I get a sense of humility from both models, and find a lot of rest knowing God is sovereign.
I guess my question for you Terry is, why do you think NASA put fake CGI footage out there?
Why? To justify their budget to the public. The conspiracy that Flat Earth is hiding is much worse, that NASA is involved in underground military bases, human trafficking, and the continuation of Nazi programs. Which by the way includes the same kind of mysticism Flat Earth promotes
Ok this is news to me about the 'why' (Even though some of the more 'wacky' FE types I've come across have been the ones blowing the lid on all the things you've mentioned)
How do you see it that 'Flat Earth' hides the things you mention?
I see mysticism, and I see the Flat Earthers like Santos Bonacci etc who promote this, yet I also see people who promote the Globe and the 'cosmic christ' - I struggle to see how the Globe is exempt from this mysticism?
It's a common pattern for a conspiracy to create a controlled opposition that sucks all the air out of the room and dominates all discussion, so that the truth can't seem to get any attention. You can tell because the Flat Earthers never expose the real evil of NASA, they just pretend that their #1 objective is to hide the "truth" of the earth's shape.
Flat Earth PROMOTES mysticism but it HIDES the darker NASA crimes. That leads me to believe Flat Earth is a controlled opposition campaign to keep people from looking in the real directions. They want UFOs, magic, superstition, etc. because NASA wants those things to be popular... because the Nazis wanted those things.
I must say the FE promoters I know absolutely expose UFO's/magic etc as a psyop, and suggest that it should be ignored/laughed at because it comes from degenerate freaks who hate the truth and hate us.
In regards to justifying budgets to public, why not have public space travel like Disneyland rides or something if it's real? why use CGI and composited imagery? I'm struggling to follow your logic on this, why not show real footage instead of CGI?
I do believe hiding the truth is the #1 goal because that is the alpha and omege, the king of the universe and the #1 threat.
Interesting that you'd mention Disney, because NASA and Disney have a long relationship. Disney helped NASA pioneer special effects techniques. You have to remember that the public bought the lies for a very long time, it justified endless Cold War spending. People believe this stuff.
Could they send a person to the moon and back if they wanted to? Of course not. But it's a compelling story for simpler times and now they're stuck dealing with the aftermath. I think they never expected things to turn out this way. They must have thought their imagery would continue to fool everyone, or that they'd develop the actual technology to do it, etc.
I agree, but if you are going to believe in as few things as possible, where should you start? I used to recite the apostolic creed every week in church, until I thought: “is this what I need to believe before I can get into the kingdom of Heaven?” Then I remembered “The kingdom of Heaven is within you.” How do you interpret that saying of Jesus, Terry? And how do you know your interpretation is right?
I suppose I can’t “know” that my interpretation is right, in the same way that I can’t “know” that any of the events of the Bible happened at all. How can I verify something that’s beyond me?
But by reading the text and studying how it connects together, discussing it critically with others, and checking yourself to make sure you’re not trying to impose a selfish or skewed idea, you can at least examine what you believe and have reasons to believe them.
I agree since all knowledge is really based on trust - whether it’s in our senses, others’ recorded writings/talks, or reliance on our rational faculties (therefore relegating even “trust in science” to mere trust that repeatability points toward correct empirical conclusions). Ultimately the sufficient reasoning I keep for Christ’s truth is that his revealed story is better than that of any aloof creator - and it’s impossible for mere mortals to concoct such a belief greater than all other concepts of Godhead ever attempted.
Absolutely. I appreciate that. That question was secondary to the first question regarding the Kingdom of Heaven being within you and was somewhat unnecessary . I’d like to know what your opinion on what the saying means, however.
I believe that when you examine the text, “within you” is not as accurate as “among you” or “in your midst”. This implies that the Kingdom of Heaven is A) centered around Jesus Christ, who was literally among them, and/or B) that it will manifest wherever there are Christians gathered. I think both of those are true. I do not believe there’s much merit in the idea that the Kingdom is internal and personal.
Then why has it been translated so badly? I have had this response before and it pre-empted the the second question. Even if a better translation is “among you“, this would suggest that heaven is not just a place you go to when you die, but is accessible while you are alive. For there to be differences in the translation in different Bibles, there must be uncertainty in interpreting what Jesus actually said and meant.
There are many ambiguities Of a similar nature in the Bible. For example, the quote “no man cometh unto the Father except by me”. This can be interpreted in relation to the understanding that Jesus transcends a single historical personality but pre-existed the historical personality, and that anyone who comes to God (whatever that means) has come through the Logos. And indeed that anyone who came to God before Jesus was born came through the Logos, and that anyone who comes to God after Jesus’ life on earth also comes through the Logos, regardless of whether they identify as a Christian or not.
This is a great post Terry. I've been limiting my intake of all "the stuff" and reading the Bible more (and Puritan paperbacks) and taking walks and being involved with Christian brothers and sisters and trying to be a witness for Christ. My life is in His hands.
Excellent and timely post, thanks Terry!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Saint 😉
I often don’t like your posts (but I still tend to read them and think about them). This one I really, really like.
Great post, I have been disengaging from conspiracy more and more and believing less and less, cheers!
Simplicity itself.
Thank you Terry. I feel saner already! Superb post.
A very clear and sane post. Thanks
This level of detachment comes with maturity, age and God's grace. :-) Thanks Terry.
One of the best Substack pieces!
Thanks for the reminder Terry:
"And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
Luke 10:41-42
I think that everything you have written here is very, very correct and to be heeded. Thank you.
Great post brother! Very well said. God Bless.
Nice post, Terry.
On Flat Earth, whilst I agree that community is a mega rabbit hole, full of erroneous dogmas and people who use contrarian takes to purposefully 'dunk their neighbour', I also have mercy on why people can start to make these assumptions, given the insane lies that come from NASA and the direct experience of earth and the sky we all have. ie. it looks and feels stationary, and water always finds its level.
I do not see the 'shape of the earth' as a primary topic, I do find it very interesting how taboo it is to challenge the prevailing model, and I like the quote from Stephen Hawking (in a somewhat rare moment of humility in respect to the boundaries of his field)
“Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe...the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest....If there are two models that both agree with observation, then one cannot say that one is more real than another."
I get a sense of humility from both models, and find a lot of rest knowing God is sovereign.
I guess my question for you Terry is, why do you think NASA put fake CGI footage out there?
Why? To justify their budget to the public. The conspiracy that Flat Earth is hiding is much worse, that NASA is involved in underground military bases, human trafficking, and the continuation of Nazi programs. Which by the way includes the same kind of mysticism Flat Earth promotes
Ok this is news to me about the 'why' (Even though some of the more 'wacky' FE types I've come across have been the ones blowing the lid on all the things you've mentioned)
How do you see it that 'Flat Earth' hides the things you mention?
I see mysticism, and I see the Flat Earthers like Santos Bonacci etc who promote this, yet I also see people who promote the Globe and the 'cosmic christ' - I struggle to see how the Globe is exempt from this mysticism?
It's a common pattern for a conspiracy to create a controlled opposition that sucks all the air out of the room and dominates all discussion, so that the truth can't seem to get any attention. You can tell because the Flat Earthers never expose the real evil of NASA, they just pretend that their #1 objective is to hide the "truth" of the earth's shape.
Flat Earth PROMOTES mysticism but it HIDES the darker NASA crimes. That leads me to believe Flat Earth is a controlled opposition campaign to keep people from looking in the real directions. They want UFOs, magic, superstition, etc. because NASA wants those things to be popular... because the Nazis wanted those things.
I see what you're saying and I agree in part.
I must say the FE promoters I know absolutely expose UFO's/magic etc as a psyop, and suggest that it should be ignored/laughed at because it comes from degenerate freaks who hate the truth and hate us.
In regards to justifying budgets to public, why not have public space travel like Disneyland rides or something if it's real? why use CGI and composited imagery? I'm struggling to follow your logic on this, why not show real footage instead of CGI?
I do believe hiding the truth is the #1 goal because that is the alpha and omege, the king of the universe and the #1 threat.
Interesting that you'd mention Disney, because NASA and Disney have a long relationship. Disney helped NASA pioneer special effects techniques. You have to remember that the public bought the lies for a very long time, it justified endless Cold War spending. People believe this stuff.
Could they send a person to the moon and back if they wanted to? Of course not. But it's a compelling story for simpler times and now they're stuck dealing with the aftermath. I think they never expected things to turn out this way. They must have thought their imagery would continue to fool everyone, or that they'd develop the actual technology to do it, etc.
I agree, but if you are going to believe in as few things as possible, where should you start? I used to recite the apostolic creed every week in church, until I thought: “is this what I need to believe before I can get into the kingdom of Heaven?” Then I remembered “The kingdom of Heaven is within you.” How do you interpret that saying of Jesus, Terry? And how do you know your interpretation is right?
I suppose I can’t “know” that my interpretation is right, in the same way that I can’t “know” that any of the events of the Bible happened at all. How can I verify something that’s beyond me?
But by reading the text and studying how it connects together, discussing it critically with others, and checking yourself to make sure you’re not trying to impose a selfish or skewed idea, you can at least examine what you believe and have reasons to believe them.
I agree since all knowledge is really based on trust - whether it’s in our senses, others’ recorded writings/talks, or reliance on our rational faculties (therefore relegating even “trust in science” to mere trust that repeatability points toward correct empirical conclusions). Ultimately the sufficient reasoning I keep for Christ’s truth is that his revealed story is better than that of any aloof creator - and it’s impossible for mere mortals to concoct such a belief greater than all other concepts of Godhead ever attempted.
Absolutely. I appreciate that. That question was secondary to the first question regarding the Kingdom of Heaven being within you and was somewhat unnecessary . I’d like to know what your opinion on what the saying means, however.
I believe that when you examine the text, “within you” is not as accurate as “among you” or “in your midst”. This implies that the Kingdom of Heaven is A) centered around Jesus Christ, who was literally among them, and/or B) that it will manifest wherever there are Christians gathered. I think both of those are true. I do not believe there’s much merit in the idea that the Kingdom is internal and personal.
Then why has it been translated so badly? I have had this response before and it pre-empted the the second question. Even if a better translation is “among you“, this would suggest that heaven is not just a place you go to when you die, but is accessible while you are alive. For there to be differences in the translation in different Bibles, there must be uncertainty in interpreting what Jesus actually said and meant.
There are many ambiguities Of a similar nature in the Bible. For example, the quote “no man cometh unto the Father except by me”. This can be interpreted in relation to the understanding that Jesus transcends a single historical personality but pre-existed the historical personality, and that anyone who comes to God (whatever that means) has come through the Logos. And indeed that anyone who came to God before Jesus was born came through the Logos, and that anyone who comes to God after Jesus’ life on earth also comes through the Logos, regardless of whether they identify as a Christian or not.
This is a great post Terry. I've been limiting my intake of all "the stuff" and reading the Bible more (and Puritan paperbacks) and taking walks and being involved with Christian brothers and sisters and trying to be a witness for Christ. My life is in His hands.