With that definition of flat earther, I'm definitely in that camp. In my eyes the whole world looks set up for that event. Do other people not see this? It seems obvious to me.
Regarding the rest of the post, you're far more knowledgeable than I about these things, but aren't you taking symbolic concepts and presenting them literally here?
"aren't you taking symbolic concepts and presenting them literally here?"
Most people know what an onion looks like inside and out and they can easily acquire one to examine the nuances with the shapes and forms. Part of what makes symbols work is that there are uncanny resemblances between two otherwise unrelated things.
I'm not saying Earth is 1:1 an onion, but that it's structure is distinctly onion-like as compared to any other object defined by layers surrounding a central core. There's no other organic or material object as close to what I theorize the center of the Earth looks like than the onion. Assumptions can be made, then, that if the Earth was indeed onion-like, then other little quirks of the onion might have analogues in the natural world as well. If we can spot components of the onion appear on the Earth, then one can build a case that they are more alike than not.
It'd be like noticing all mammals have two arms and two legs. None have three arms and three legs. Therefore, when looking at a skeleton of an animal whose limbs are missing, it's a safe assumption that, should we determine it is a mammal's remains, it must then not have three arms and three legs in any diagram attempting to "fill in the blanks." It would simply be statistically unlikely edging on delusion to tack on extra limbs when no other mammal does.
In the case of an onion-shaped earth, we can then take some liberty and assume that, while the Earth obviously wasn't "inspired" by an onion nor the onion inspired by the Earth, they both are tapping into a structure that geometrically works no matter the scale. That structure predates incarnations of the objects in question. If you wanna get Biblical on such concepts, read up on the "pre-incarnation of Christ" or various forms of old-testament "Christophany".
It's an adjacent sentiment that things who may be made manifest in the physical realm actually exist in the spiritual realm in a way unbound by our understanding of time and space. In other words, all things are instances of designs that have been around before time itself. Like a toaster oven, the design can change and go through iterations over time, but the intent and purpose of the design existed before its creation in the physical realm. With that concept in mind, it's not impossible to believe that two rather unrelated objects, such as the Earth and an onion, tap into the same design and physically sound structure that existed well before their instantiation and subsequent evaluation and categorization by scholars.
Maybe I'm getting lost in the weeds here, but that's what this type of discussion is all about. Taking systems in nature, identifying their patterns, and then comparing them by their patterns with other systems to determine to just what extent the pattern's prevalence has in our day-to-day life. The final step is then to see if we can manipulate the pattern in a controlled microcosm and have the same lessons apply to the macrocosm. If something works for a small-scale model, then odds are it works in a large-scale model as well.
With that definition of flat earther, I'm definitely in that camp. In my eyes the whole world looks set up for that event. Do other people not see this? It seems obvious to me.
Regarding the rest of the post, you're far more knowledgeable than I about these things, but aren't you taking symbolic concepts and presenting them literally here?
"aren't you taking symbolic concepts and presenting them literally here?"
Most people know what an onion looks like inside and out and they can easily acquire one to examine the nuances with the shapes and forms. Part of what makes symbols work is that there are uncanny resemblances between two otherwise unrelated things.
I'm not saying Earth is 1:1 an onion, but that it's structure is distinctly onion-like as compared to any other object defined by layers surrounding a central core. There's no other organic or material object as close to what I theorize the center of the Earth looks like than the onion. Assumptions can be made, then, that if the Earth was indeed onion-like, then other little quirks of the onion might have analogues in the natural world as well. If we can spot components of the onion appear on the Earth, then one can build a case that they are more alike than not.
It'd be like noticing all mammals have two arms and two legs. None have three arms and three legs. Therefore, when looking at a skeleton of an animal whose limbs are missing, it's a safe assumption that, should we determine it is a mammal's remains, it must then not have three arms and three legs in any diagram attempting to "fill in the blanks." It would simply be statistically unlikely edging on delusion to tack on extra limbs when no other mammal does.
In the case of an onion-shaped earth, we can then take some liberty and assume that, while the Earth obviously wasn't "inspired" by an onion nor the onion inspired by the Earth, they both are tapping into a structure that geometrically works no matter the scale. That structure predates incarnations of the objects in question. If you wanna get Biblical on such concepts, read up on the "pre-incarnation of Christ" or various forms of old-testament "Christophany".
It's an adjacent sentiment that things who may be made manifest in the physical realm actually exist in the spiritual realm in a way unbound by our understanding of time and space. In other words, all things are instances of designs that have been around before time itself. Like a toaster oven, the design can change and go through iterations over time, but the intent and purpose of the design existed before its creation in the physical realm. With that concept in mind, it's not impossible to believe that two rather unrelated objects, such as the Earth and an onion, tap into the same design and physically sound structure that existed well before their instantiation and subsequent evaluation and categorization by scholars.
Maybe I'm getting lost in the weeds here, but that's what this type of discussion is all about. Taking systems in nature, identifying their patterns, and then comparing them by their patterns with other systems to determine to just what extent the pattern's prevalence has in our day-to-day life. The final step is then to see if we can manipulate the pattern in a controlled microcosm and have the same lessons apply to the macrocosm. If something works for a small-scale model, then odds are it works in a large-scale model as well.