Flat Earth Theory

[ScottA]

But it was also spiritual....
Israel was a chosen nation...
and a light, as you've said - a spiritual light.

Romans 9:6-8
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.


I might be getting what you're saying conflated with the above.

IOW, God's promises were made through Israel...
spiritual promises.

And, yes, they are spiritually fulfilled in Christ.

Yes, everything is spiritual. But as the flesh and the spirit are not the same body, so too Israel as a people was a light made manifest physically unto a physical world, the message of with, again, yes, was spiritual.

 

[Chihuahua]

First, if you are complaining that you already explained something, and then explaining it again, then why are you explaining it again? Are you perhaps, as you later talk about, just looking for an excuse to 'throw out random words'?

As I said, again, posting videos as a response is a typical tactic of people that have nothing to say. I am not going to watch an hour long video a person spent ten seconds to search. The poster knows they won't get a response and childish thinks, ah ha! I got the last word in. Another diversion is quoting scripture alone as a respons

I asked you two questions that you avoided. Every sharp person here can see it if they consider our conversation. Please address this topic:

1. Do you consider (not, "do you respond to") video evidence?

2. What is evidence to you? (That is, what constitutes 'evidence'?)

If one says I believe X and another says I disagree, they can explain why they disagree. If they post an hour long video, it is fine to say "If you see 5:00-6:00 it goes into more detail about what my point is. Nothing wrong with quoting the bible or any source material if you explain what point you are making.

People do not do that. They simply want to feel they "won" when in reality they cannot come up with a coherent statement.

Outrageous things happen in life, so just because someone makes a claim that sounds outrageous to you does not mean the claim itself is absurd. Perhaps the claim is the truth. Don't you want truth? Why don't you handle what might be true more carefully? Would you have to shed too much arrogance for that?

Also, what claim have I made that is outrageous? Or how is this tangent of yours relevant to me?

That's not a tangent. If you want to use big boy words, do so properly. Generally, outrageous claims are absurd. Believing in a massive intergovernmental centuries old multicorporate conspiracy without explaining how they manage but even worse can't explain what is the purpose means that person is trolling or likely needs serious help. If someone says they hear voices from God, angels, etc at least that could be plausible, but more than likely is schizophrenia. As long as they are not causing or threatening harm who cares.

I say the moon landing may have been faked, and there is apparent video footage of the mission being faked. So now are you implying that considering logical possibilities is an outrageous act? It would therefore appear your position is that thinking critically is outrageous. So please clarify and answer all of my questions.

Sure - there is nothing wrong with considering possibilities, especially in trivial matters. People love to stir the pot with the lame
"I am just saying..." It is a form of trolling. They don't actually believe it, they just know people will respond and they like to play a little game which ends with insults, long videos, or quotes of scripture alone. One common tactic here is to use scripture itself to insult the person while claiming taking higher ground when they run out of interest or material in their trollfest.

Sometimes videos do provide evidence, and not everything you perceive as absurd is absurd.

No one disputes that it can have evidence or good points. However, if a person's response is a video alone they do not deserve a response. I am not going to watch a video on someone's nutjob theories. Should I take notes? It is just laziness and they know it will not get a response.

And you are the one calling it absurdity. What exactly is the absurdity in our case, and how? Can you explain it without being arrogant or from ignorance? Because so far your claims have been from arrogance and ignorance, and you have given false claims that I already showed and addressed. Please be accurate and logical.

In what way am I not being accurate and logical? You see, normal people make negative accusations about a person and then back it up. Graduates of Troll university make vague unspecified negative accusations.

What if the video is not stupid? Then the respondent would be the ridiculous one for claiming it is stupid?

Generally videos on conspiracy theories are stupid and so stupid that the person posting it cannot get a point across.

You have a dialogue in your mind that you're playing out here, and it was practically a waste of my time to read because it doesn't even apply to me. It is as if you are just complaining that I sent you evidence. Evidence that you claimed I didn't have!

If you watch Ancient Alien Astronaut theories and put up a video alone, that is not conducive to anything. People, who shall we say, are a little, different, read garbage websites and cut and paste over and over and over again.

Great, random words from you that I get to deal with.

You say I have no evidence, and when I provide apparent video evidence, you say, "Use your words". Then you say, "You are not addressing the issue".

That is correct. It takes ten seconds to post some garbage video, but it is impossible to respond to it unless a person is explaining the point they are trying to make. One common tactic is to then say, Oh, on that point.. that isn't what I am saying. It is trolling, they know it is trolling and they get some satisfaction out of it thinking they beat someone because they posted a video they can then say the response to the video was not what the person was going after. Or "I am just saying"

 

[Chihuahua]

The damning videos exposing NASA have been SCRUBBED from the Internet

Replaced with "experts" denying what was exposed = satan's high priority

if you seriously believe a fake moon landing really is a high priority for Satan, you might need some help.

 

[David in NJ]

I really don't.



Passage does not say the Earth is flat.

Isa 40:21 Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

So, from the North Pole the Lord stretches out the heavens and sees a flat earth, like we learned from the atlas in the classroom.

Huge Oceans are laughing at those who place their trust in NASA/Satan and his CGI giant wet ball spinning at 1,000 mph

God is not mocked = His Earth is FIXED upon Foundations that do not move - except when the LORD shakes them.

Found this for all whose minds are ensared with the Man of Sin and his globalists

11 Bible verses about Earth Being Fixed And Immovable

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

 

[David in NJ]

if you seriously believe a fake moon landing really is a high priority for Satan, you might need some help.

LOL x100

You globularists are the laughing stock of the holy angels in Heaven.

 

[Chihuahua]

Job 38, 1Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

See the above post? Perfect example. No actual content.

 

[ProDeo]

Huge Oceans are laughing at those who place their trust in NASA/Satan and his CGI giant wet ball spinning at 1,000 mph

God is not mocked = His Earth is FIXED upon Foundations that do not move - except when the LORD shakes them.

Found this for all whose minds are ensared with the Man of Sin and his globalists

11 Bible verses about Earth Being Fixed And Immovable

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

I posted Scripture, what about Isa 40:21-22 ?

 

[Chihuahua]

LOL x100

You globularists are the laughing stock of the holy angels in Heaven.

So you believe angels laugh at people deceived by Satan?

 

[David in NJ]

I posted Scripture, what about Isa 40:21-22 ?

OK will take a LOOK = Thank You and Blessed be the NAME Above all names = Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Chihuahua]

And you are blind to that fact as well - which is why you are here - God wants you to be set free

1 John 5:19

By believing in resurrected theories that were disproven centuries ago? Flat Earth is a gag. It is a game. Sadly, some people on the internet actually started to believe it.

 

[David in NJ]

By believing in resurrected theories that were disproven centuries ago? Flat Earth is a gag. It is a game. Sadly, some people on the internet actually started to believe it.

i do not promote theories but globalists do all the time and change them as they go down that slippery slope.

Obey JESUS who Says to us = "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"

When we obey His Commandments we LIVE and walk in the LIGHT = Psalm 119:105

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."

Rejoice in the FREEDOM God offers us in His Holy Spirit of Truth = John 14:15-17

NASA can never give to you what CHRIST Purchased for us with His Blood on the Cross

 

[ScottA]

Never underestimate the Truth - 1 John 5:19 = "the whole world is under the control of Satan"

You keep slipping in claims of untruth.

That is not at all the message of 1 John 5:19. You may as well say Christ has not overcome the world. Your claim is anti-Christ. John's was not. He was addressing the difference between what is greater from God as apposed to what the world may believe. "Eternally Harmful, Painful and DARKNESS" indeed.

But you plucking a bit of scripture out of a passage seemingly out of context is not the problem. Even Jesus did that. But that doesn't give you a pass or license. The problem is you have not and do not reconcile all scripture, and have merely selected and are using a verse or two that would seem to support your theory against the greater truth of all scripture.

 

[Chihuahua]

Well, I own several dictionaries, and evidently although my U.S. school system education admittedly does not exceed the 5th grade (whereas I think I saw you claimed to have a badge that declares you are a scientist), I know more about the word "dichotomy" than you do. That is, evidently, it seems to me. You are free to argue otherwise.

But since you are monopolizing the word (I say this because you operate as if you dominate or have total control over the definition of the word "dichotomy"), it is already not looking good for you as far as whether you understand how language even works on a fundamental level. That is, to say, "X is not what this word means!", is to deny that people may validly apply their own meaning to words, and in which, in the extreme case, not even dictionaries can be valid.

Are you for real? Let's just go around using words with whatever meanings we want to make up for it. When I said "evidence" what i meant was unicorn.

Oxford Dictionary:
Dichotomy: a division into two, esp. a sharply defined one.
&
Especially: much more than in other cases.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Dichotomy: a division or process of dividing into two esp. mutually exclusive or contradictory groups.

Oxford Dictionary provides a simple definition of dichotomy, meaning 'a division into two'. It follows up with, 'especially, a sharply defined division'. However it also defines 'especially' as "much more than in other cases'. So it fully allows for the 'other cases' to have the basic meaning to be 'division into two'.

Since this obvious use of the language is obviously sourced in an obviously well established dictionary, my use of this following reasoning is obviously completely fair; and your statement that apparently came from ignorance, likely also from your established account of arrogance, is obviously wrong:

You did not understand what the word meant.

If it was faked, the Soviets would have embarrassed the west or did it themselves.

You wrote "You don't know this. You and I are people typing behind computer screens. For all we know, it was the Soviets' idea to have the U.S. lead the conspiracy for the benefit of all government leaders. You sound ignorant when you propose such a closed-minded dichotomy."

Since established dictionaries fundamentally define "dichotomy" as 'dividing into two", and you have divided the potential of NASA faking the moon landing into two possibilities, you have therefore provided a dichotomy according to established dictionaries.

One might think the reason you confidently said I don't understand the word 'dichotomy' is probably because you only understood the more common use of the word.

However, there is an argument that one of the possibilities you provided includes the Soviets doing the deceiving, and the other possibility you provided includes the Soviets ridiculing the U.S. for doing the deceiving. This may be argued to be in itself contradictory (in that they are fundamentally proposed opposites), which would make it a dichotomy in a more common sense of the word as well. But, I find that argument in itself makes a potentially false dichotomy of interpreting your dichotomy.

Also on that note, there is a common phrase, "false-dichotomy" that is used to label an informal logical fallacy of presenting two ideas as if they are the only two possible options in an equation, when there are indeed more possible options.

Cambridge Dictionary:
False Dichotomy: a choice between two things that is presented as if they are the only two possible things.

For this phrase, Cambridge Dictionary defines dichotomy as a presented choice between two things, and the 'false' aspect of the phrase evidently comes from the action of presenting them as if they are the only two options.

According to Cambridge Dictionary, you presented a dichotomy (false one at that) for presenting two possibilities, but there are logically more possibilities that just the two you presented, which I have already provided in this genuine, carefully crafted article-sized response.


No it was not relevant, because it was intended as a proposed logical possibility to demonstrate the falseness of your dichotomy. That ship has sailed and has already arrived back to the dock. It turns out, this so-called 'trial' was the evidence itself.

But if you want it to make it relevant, then what exactly do you want it to be relevant to, and how do you justify making it relevant in the context of our conversation?


This message of yours aged worse than milk twelve weeks after it's expiration date. See my justification for my fair and proper use of the word "dichotomy'.

--------------------
I said:


You replied:

Which of those words do you claim are random? All of them? Or what? You probably just don't understand them.

For one, that part of the answer of mine was precisely relevant for answering your question and defining my use of the phrase "logical possiblity".

You can claim it is random words, but that doesn't mean your claim of it being "random words" is true. In fact, you provided no basis for your claim. It appears your claim itself is a collection of random words.

I also considered this from another angle. Perhaps not everything I write intends to further my arguments. For example, some words are intended to be questions to help me simply learn more.

But is everything you write intended to further your argument? That is, is your only purpose here to argue? It seems you are subtly telling on yourself.


Look at you, as if you are the taskmaster.

First, before we get into my supposed task, if you have the authority to distribute a task to me, then it is fair I have the authority to distribute a task to you:

Your task is to write me a particular essay on the word 'Dichotomy'. It must be at least 30 paragraphs. Explain the apparent origin of the word, and cite several established dictionary definitions. Provide and explain several possible fair uses of the word based on each of these definitions.

Actually, I have more tasks for you. To not overwhelm you, here is just one more: Watch the apparent video evidence I showed you, and write an essay on that. Post it in this forum once you have completed it. Make this one a minimum of 60 paragraphs. The narrative of the essay is to be from a position of general skepticism and no biases from either position of the subject - that is, you are to not give an unfair advantage to either side in contemplating whether the moon landing happened.


What are red hearings? I suppose you meant to type "red herrings".

So here is Chihuahua back with the crystal ball making predictions.

What do you mean my task is: "What is the evidence...etc. etc."?

My task is the evidence itself?! or what? what is your 'what'?

I suppose you meant and should have said, "Provide the evidence...". But you didn't say that. You said "What is the evidence" and eventually followed up with predictions, but no question mark. There isn't even a question mark in the passage, so it is not even a proper question. So it is a very confusing passage in itself.

Wow, sensitive much? That was quite a post about your misused word.

You act like I don't understand the word "dichotomy" so as to criticize me on my use of the English language, yet I have now backed up my use of the word with exceptional precision, and even cited established dictionaries. Meanwhile, your post evidently contains multiple inaccuracies with the English language.

You mean typos?
I am glad you have such exceptional precision. That is quite a dichotomy.

 

[Chihuahua]

i do promote theories but globalists do all the time and change them as they go down that slippery slope.

Obey JESUS who Says to us = "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"

When we obey His Commandments we LIVE and walk in the LIGHT = Psalm 119:105

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."

Rejoice in the FREEDOM God offers us in His Holy Spirit of Truth = John 14:15-17

NASA can never give to you what CHRIST Purchased for us with His Blood on the Cross

I didn't know it was Jesus or accepting NASA. That is quite the dichotomy.

 

[David in NJ]

You keep slipping in claims of untruth.

That is not at all the message of 1 John 5:19. You may as well say Christ has not overcome the world. Your claim is anti-Christ. John's was not. He was addressing the difference between what is greater from God as apposed to what the world may believe. "Eternally Harmful, Painful and DARKNESS" indeed.

But you plucking a bit of scripture out of a passage seemingly out of context is not the problem. Even Jesus did that. But that doesn't give you a pass or license. The problem is you have not and do not reconcile all scripture, and have merely selected and are using a verse or two that would seem to support your theory against the greater truth of all scripture.

i posted for you multiple times Jeremiah 31:35-37

In this passage of the Word of God, HE is challenging you to His Truth and asks you:
prove the spinning WET ball earth theory "against the Foundation of the Earth that I the LORD established"

GOD Says: (not me)
A.) Search out the Heavens Above = If you can
B.) Search and Find the Foundations of the Earth = If you can

If you succeed you win and I will remove the descendants of Israel as a nation before ME

FYI - ISRAEL REMAINS = satan and the globularists/NASA are liars

We call that "BUSTED"

@Chihuahua

 

[Rudometkin]

If the earth is spinning eastward, then when a drone hovers in the sky, it is maintaining perfect rotation with the earth, evidenced by the stillness of the drone relative to the planet below it.

How does this happen? I would like to consider answers.

 

[David in NJ]

If the earth is spinning eastward, then when a drone hovers in the sky, it is maintaining perfect rotation with the earth, evidenced by the stillness of the drone relative to the planet below it.

How does this happen? I would like to consider answers.

i believe this can be easily tested in an airplane if you try a small toy drone
i would suspect that the toy drone would continue with the airplane and not move to the back of the plane while hovering inside the plane

would be an easy experiment

 

[Rudometkin]

i believe this can be easily proven in an airplane if you try a small toy drone
i would suspect that the toy drone would continue with the airplane and not move to the back of the plane while hovering inside the plane

would be an easy experiment

I wonder then, if so, then why does it? Is it because the plane is enclosed? and what would happen when the plane tilted and wobbled? Does the drone wobble with the plane?

If the plane speeds up or slows down after the drone is suspended, does the drone maintain its relative position in the plane?

I agree this one would be an easy experiment.

 

[David in NJ]

I wonder then, if so, then why does it? Is it because the plane is enclosed? and what would happen when the plane tilted and wobbled? Does the drone wobble with the plane?

If the plane speeds up or slows down after the drone is suspended, does the drone maintain its relative position in the plane?

I agree this one would be an easy experiment.

#1 - the plane is a very confined and pressurized area

#2 - the plane is flying LEVEL = we do not include take off and quick descent for landing

#3 - any type of spin causes G-forces INSIDE the plane which would cause the drone to hit walls

#4 - now try it with WATER

#5 - WATER is LAUGHING at the CGI 1,000 mph spinning water ball earth

 

[rvmb]

Job 38, 1Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Using the Bible or your common sense :-
Why does Argentina NEVER see the North Star yet Canada does ?
Why does Cape Horn have 17 hours daylight today & Salekhard less than 3 ?
No rush, take your time