To all of you non flat earthers.
- Thread starter Gina777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No. My reply to your post #62 is with regard to the 'evil' that has its fingers intertwined in the governments and countries you referred to in your question.
Christians, like everyone else, have been told certain lies all of their life - and, merely accept those lies as truth because they were taught to accept them.
In fact, since everyone is "brainwashed" with these lies from the time of their birth, they are already heavily influenced before they become a Christian.
To see the truth, you must first "unbrainwash" yourself - which begins with swallowing your pride and actually believing that it is in fact actually possible for you to be deceived about something your whole life up to this point - and then be willing to search for the truth and accept it when you find it.
Christians, like everyone else, have been told certain lies all of their life - and, merely accept those lies as truth because they were taught to accept them.
In fact, since everyone is "brainwashed" with these lies from the time of their birth, they are already heavily influenced before they become a Christian.
To see the truth, you must first "unbrainwash" yourself - which begins with swallowing your pride and actually believing that it is in fact actually possible for you to be deceived about something your whole life up to this point - and then be willing to search for the truth and accept it when you find it.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
That is a pretty darn bold accusation and supposition to be making considering that you know very precious little about all of the "objective proof" that has come from my personal research of the topic.
Why do you say such a thing when you no-doubt have heard less than 1% of whatever "proof" I might be able to provide you.
I have not yet seen you provide a single objective proof that Ball Earth is the truth.
So - how about you "put your money where your mouth is" and prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a spinning ball flying through space...
You will not be able to do it.
~
The best way to prove Flat Earth is to attempt to prove Ball Earth - with total honesty.
If you say - "The Earth is round because NASA says so." - that does not count for anything, as every last detail must be provable with a repeatable scientific method approach - without assuming anything you were simply taught to believe on faith.
Modern science has become something that people believe on faith instead of by proof.
~
I don't have "a single objective proof" that God is real or that Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
However --- what I do witness by virtue of my senses, thought processes, and in the depth of my being (my soul) --- provides "extreme objective proof" of these things - with no question whatsoever.
Flat Earth is just another piece of the truth of the reality we live in. And, I have "witnessed" plenty-sufficient significant "data points" of reality to "prove" beyond measure what the truth of the matter is.
Why do you say such a thing when you no-doubt have heard less than 1% of whatever "proof" I might be able to provide you.
I have not yet seen you provide a single objective proof that Ball Earth is the truth.
So - how about you "put your money where your mouth is" and prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a spinning ball flying through space...
You will not be able to do it.
~
The best way to prove Flat Earth is to attempt to prove Ball Earth - with total honesty.
If you say - "The Earth is round because NASA says so." - that does not count for anything, as every last detail must be provable with a repeatable scientific method approach - without assuming anything you were simply taught to believe on faith.
Modern science has become something that people believe on faith instead of by proof.
~
I don't have "a single objective proof" that God is real or that Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
However --- what I do witness by virtue of my senses, thought processes, and in the depth of my being (my soul) --- provides "extreme objective proof" of these things - with no question whatsoever.
Flat Earth is just another piece of the truth of the reality we live in. And, I have "witnessed" plenty-sufficient significant "data points" of reality to "prove" beyond measure what the truth of the matter is.
Isaiah 40:22 does not prove that the Earth is a ball. The phrase 'circle of the earth' does not necessarily refer to the silhouette of the Earth. Have you considered the rest of the verse?
What other verses?
Yes, it is more important to know you belong to God/Christ.
However, it is not a sin or crime to examine the true nature of the reality we live in.
What other verses?
Yes, it is more important to know you belong to God/Christ.
However, it is not a sin or crime to examine the true nature of the reality we live in.
Based on my personal research of the topic, I have some advice for anyone who honestly wishes to understand the Flat Earth model better...
For a great many things that you might examine concerning the truth about Ball Earth versus Flat Earth, there are 'equivalents' for each that "make sense" within their [own] frame of reference.
Don't spend too much time on these things. What you need to look at are the things that "make sense" in one model but not the other.
It is the 1% and not the 99% that you need to examine.
Of course, if you are going to compare the two models - you need to have a sufficient understanding of both models first...
One of the things you should discover eventually is that [most] people who advocate Flat Earth actually know more about Ball Earth than the vast majority of those who blindly advocate Ball Earth having never actually attempted to "prove" it to themselves.
For a great many things that you might examine concerning the truth about Ball Earth versus Flat Earth, there are 'equivalents' for each that "make sense" within their [own] frame of reference.
Don't spend too much time on these things. What you need to look at are the things that "make sense" in one model but not the other.
It is the 1% and not the 99% that you need to examine.
Of course, if you are going to compare the two models - you need to have a sufficient understanding of both models first...
One of the things you should discover eventually is that [most] people who advocate Flat Earth actually know more about Ball Earth than the vast majority of those who blindly advocate Ball Earth having never actually attempted to "prove" it to themselves.
Perhaps someone has an answer to this conundrum?
Modern science will tell you that the gravitational "pull" of the moon will affect tides - not waves. There is a difference between the two. Waves are always present while the tides move 'in' and 'out'.
If you assume outright that tides occur because of the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( the conclusion of modern science ) -- and then, you go gather the data that modern science has provided -- and, you look at all of the tide cycle patterns everywhere on Earth compared to the position and path of the moon at every precise moment in the tide cycles ----- what will you discover and determine?
Do the patterns match the position and path of the moon?
If they do not match, what does that tell you?
It tells you that modern science is claiming something false.
If they do match, what does that tell you?
It tells you that modern science has built a theory that matches the observation.
And, if so -- does this automatically mean that the theory is true?
No - it does not.
Yet - this has become the 'core' of modern science -- a collection of theories that are specifically designed to match observation -- while not necessarily having any actual resemblance to the true nature of reality.
( Now - just keep that in mind... )
Does the "pull" of the moon affect the Great Lakes? the Dead Sea? other large bodies of water?
How about smaller bodies of water? How about that favorite lake you like to fish on?
How about the water in that cup you are holding at the picnic out by the lake?
We have all heard that "they say" the "pull" of the moon will [ even ] affect the water in our body / brain.
Really?
( Just think for a moment about the different amounts of water in the bodies of humans, animals, plants -- and other things and places where water is concentrated. How should the gravitational "pull" of the moon affect each of them, according to the amount of water and the particular nature of the manner in which it is 'concentrated'? )
Should 'gravity' have a greater "pull" on a larger amount of water or a smaller amount of water?
Modern science will tell you that the gravitational pull of everything is the same on everything else. ( i.e. - the gravitational pull of a bowling ball on everything else around it will be the same - modified by inverse-of-the-square-of-the-distance, etc. )
Why does the "pull" of the moon [ really ] only [ actually ] affect the oceans?
Why is it that -- while standing on the beach of an ocean watching the tide go 'in' and 'out' -- while also watching the water in a glass on a table on that beach remain perfectly still in the glass --- why is it that a force so enormous - enough to 'overcome' the gravitational "pull" of the Earth directly below the ocean from so great a distance out in space - that can move many Gazillions of gallons of water in the ocean - and "hold it up" ( "ocean tide swell", for lack of a better term ) continually ( Do you really understand just how much force would be required to do this? ) --- why is it that it has no effect on the water in the glass? or, the clouds that are between the moon and the ocean? or, the water droplets that are falling from those clouds?
You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on a raindrop that is falling from a cloud - that is between the moon and the ocean - down to that ocean surface...??????????
"You are kidding --- right???"
( Think in terms of a Gazillions-of-gallons-of-water 'drop' versus a single rain 'drop'. The supposed effect of the "pull" of the moon is that it is able to "lift up and hold up" - [ the weight of ] that G-drop - several feet - as / in a continual action... But, has no effect whatsoever on a single rain drop??? Are you with me so far? Now - just think about that for a while... )
Why doesn't the "pull" of the moon affect the water content of the atmosphere between it and the Earth?
You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on water vapor in the atmosphere...??????????
"You are kidding --- right???"
Any water vapor - in the atmosphere or anywhere else - that is not specifically being driven downward by the wind - should be rising upwards continually ( even slowly ) - right?
If we place water vapor in a bell jar - completely isolated - no wind currents at all - with the moon directly overhead -- will the water vapor rise upward until it reaches the 'hard' physical limit of the glass at the top of the bell jar?
Don't give me any crap about air pressure, blah blah blah, etc. ----- if the "pull" of the moon can "break" all of those physical laws out in the open ( where so many more / other physical laws come into play ) with the exceedingly-more-heavy oceans - then - it would absolutely have no problem whatsoever "sucking" the water vapor in the bell jar to the top of the bell jar.
The "fluid dynamics" of the liquid water in the oceans would be a much greater "foe" for the "pull" of the moon to overcome than would be the "fluid dynamics" of the water vapor in the bell jar.
These are the kinds of things you need to think about. Expand your awareness to the "bigger picture" of things.
And -- if you study this "opinion" of modern science carefully enough - utilizing the actual 'physics' that is behind the claim -- I believe that you will discover that the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( or the Earth or anything else ) will be much greater on water vapor than it will be on many Gazillions of gallons of water.
In other words, there would be a much greater 'resistance' to the "pull" of the moon from the localized physical properties of a larger amount of water than of a smaller amount of water.
Why does the "pull" of the moon affect the huge amounts of water so massively while having no effect whatsoever on the smaller amounts of water?
Here is another question to consider:
Does the "pull" of the moon affect anything other than water?
If not, then -- why not?
If it does, then -- what effects would there be from it?
( other liquids... gases... ? )
If the "pull" of the moon has such a great effect on the oceans --- why does it have no effect whatsoever on a butterfly or a soap bubble floating in air?
Modern science will tell you that the gravitational "pull" of the moon will affect tides - not waves. There is a difference between the two. Waves are always present while the tides move 'in' and 'out'.
If you assume outright that tides occur because of the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( the conclusion of modern science ) -- and then, you go gather the data that modern science has provided -- and, you look at all of the tide cycle patterns everywhere on Earth compared to the position and path of the moon at every precise moment in the tide cycles ----- what will you discover and determine?
Do the patterns match the position and path of the moon?
If they do not match, what does that tell you?
It tells you that modern science is claiming something false.
If they do match, what does that tell you?
It tells you that modern science has built a theory that matches the observation.
And, if so -- does this automatically mean that the theory is true?
No - it does not.
Yet - this has become the 'core' of modern science -- a collection of theories that are specifically designed to match observation -- while not necessarily having any actual resemblance to the true nature of reality.
( Now - just keep that in mind... )
Does the "pull" of the moon affect the Great Lakes? the Dead Sea? other large bodies of water?
How about smaller bodies of water? How about that favorite lake you like to fish on?
How about the water in that cup you are holding at the picnic out by the lake?
We have all heard that "they say" the "pull" of the moon will [ even ] affect the water in our body / brain.
Really?
( Just think for a moment about the different amounts of water in the bodies of humans, animals, plants -- and other things and places where water is concentrated. How should the gravitational "pull" of the moon affect each of them, according to the amount of water and the particular nature of the manner in which it is 'concentrated'? )
Should 'gravity' have a greater "pull" on a larger amount of water or a smaller amount of water?
Modern science will tell you that the gravitational pull of everything is the same on everything else. ( i.e. - the gravitational pull of a bowling ball on everything else around it will be the same - modified by inverse-of-the-square-of-the-distance, etc. )
Why does the "pull" of the moon [ really ] only [ actually ] affect the oceans?
Why is it that -- while standing on the beach of an ocean watching the tide go 'in' and 'out' -- while also watching the water in a glass on a table on that beach remain perfectly still in the glass --- why is it that a force so enormous - enough to 'overcome' the gravitational "pull" of the Earth directly below the ocean from so great a distance out in space - that can move many Gazillions of gallons of water in the ocean - and "hold it up" ( "ocean tide swell", for lack of a better term ) continually ( Do you really understand just how much force would be required to do this? ) --- why is it that it has no effect on the water in the glass? or, the clouds that are between the moon and the ocean? or, the water droplets that are falling from those clouds?
You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on a raindrop that is falling from a cloud - that is between the moon and the ocean - down to that ocean surface...??????????
"You are kidding --- right???"
( Think in terms of a Gazillions-of-gallons-of-water 'drop' versus a single rain 'drop'. The supposed effect of the "pull" of the moon is that it is able to "lift up and hold up" - [ the weight of ] that G-drop - several feet - as / in a continual action... But, has no effect whatsoever on a single rain drop??? Are you with me so far? Now - just think about that for a while... )
Why doesn't the "pull" of the moon affect the water content of the atmosphere between it and the Earth?
You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on water vapor in the atmosphere...??????????
"You are kidding --- right???"
Any water vapor - in the atmosphere or anywhere else - that is not specifically being driven downward by the wind - should be rising upwards continually ( even slowly ) - right?
If we place water vapor in a bell jar - completely isolated - no wind currents at all - with the moon directly overhead -- will the water vapor rise upward until it reaches the 'hard' physical limit of the glass at the top of the bell jar?
Don't give me any crap about air pressure, blah blah blah, etc. ----- if the "pull" of the moon can "break" all of those physical laws out in the open ( where so many more / other physical laws come into play ) with the exceedingly-more-heavy oceans - then - it would absolutely have no problem whatsoever "sucking" the water vapor in the bell jar to the top of the bell jar.
The "fluid dynamics" of the liquid water in the oceans would be a much greater "foe" for the "pull" of the moon to overcome than would be the "fluid dynamics" of the water vapor in the bell jar.
These are the kinds of things you need to think about. Expand your awareness to the "bigger picture" of things.
And -- if you study this "opinion" of modern science carefully enough - utilizing the actual 'physics' that is behind the claim -- I believe that you will discover that the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( or the Earth or anything else ) will be much greater on water vapor than it will be on many Gazillions of gallons of water.
In other words, there would be a much greater 'resistance' to the "pull" of the moon from the localized physical properties of a larger amount of water than of a smaller amount of water.
Why does the "pull" of the moon affect the huge amounts of water so massively while having no effect whatsoever on the smaller amounts of water?
Here is another question to consider:
Does the "pull" of the moon affect anything other than water?
If not, then -- why not?
If it does, then -- what effects would there be from it?
( other liquids... gases... ? )
If the "pull" of the moon has such a great effect on the oceans --- why does it have no effect whatsoever on a butterfly or a soap bubble floating in air?
Well, the thing is, you are not counting anything else then your view as proof. This reminds me to talk with JW people.
So it makes no realy sense to discuss about this theme. Neither you are able to proof your view. You cant tell me where the astronauts landet on earth for to fake the landing of the moon. You cant tell me where the ISS is, if not in the Orbit. You cant tell me where the end of th earth is. You cant tell me how it is possible to fly around the earth, if the earth is not round.
So stay in you believe System, it seems the flat eath community is growing in the last years. Your arguments dont convince me.
And about your questioning about the moon pull effect to the ocean. I believe that God can create things that they fit together, even if we are not able to understand them.
So it makes no realy sense to discuss about this theme. Neither you are able to proof your view. You cant tell me where the astronauts landet on earth for to fake the landing of the moon. You cant tell me where the ISS is, if not in the Orbit. You cant tell me where the end of th earth is. You cant tell me how it is possible to fly around the earth, if the earth is not round.
So stay in you believe System, it seems the flat eath community is growing in the last years. Your arguments dont convince me.
And about your questioning about the moon pull effect to the ocean. I believe that God can create things that they fit together, even if we are not able to understand them.
The flat earth is beyond dumb, it actually makes me sad that people think this.
Now, I will say, this, you entitled to believe whatever you want, but from an outside perspective, it's not a good witness for Christians.
Also, I believe in a concave earth, but present it as a theory, rather than a fact. Which leaves room to be wrong.
Guy in the video makes another compelling argument, that the flat earth is wrong, by airline flights.
Now, I will say, this, you entitled to believe whatever you want, but from an outside perspective, it's not a good witness for Christians.
Also, I believe in a concave earth, but present it as a theory, rather than a fact. Which leaves room to be wrong.
Guy in the video makes another compelling argument, that the flat earth is wrong, by airline flights.
If the earth was flat, sailboat would just get smaller and smaller. Flat earth debunked!
Sailboat proves concave earth, not convex. If we live outside the earth, we will always be climbing uphill, if we live inside the earth we will always be walking downhill.
Boat is sinking, not rising. Case in point we live inside the earth, not outside.
This almost put me off the cliff, because it hurts thinking about it.
Fact or fiction? You make the call!
Sailboat proves concave earth, not convex. If we live outside the earth, we will always be climbing uphill, if we live inside the earth we will always be walking downhill.
Boat is sinking, not rising. Case in point we live inside the earth, not outside.
This almost put me off the cliff, because it hurts thinking about it.
Fact or fiction? You make the call!
