Today - Maundy Thursday - is not an exception, for some reason. Perhaps because the people who do believe Christ meant what He said on the Last Supper we shall commemorate this evening like to express this belief in the ten categories of Aristotle and the attack on Geocentrism (not very well carried through in detail) allowed writers Robert Carter & Jonathan Sarfati to write a line like:
Similarly, many of Galileo’s opponents in the church read the cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy into poetic passages of Scripture and used those interpretations against him, just as many long-age compromisers read today’s long-age ideas into the Bible and then try to argue against biblical creation.
That is exactly all the couple are doing to support Heliocentrism. But it does involve confirming a Protestant culture of attacking the Scholastics or Aristotelians, one which has been on stage since the bad old days of Luther and Calvin. That just possibly MIGHT be the reason why attacking Geocentrism is here done on precisely Maundy Thursday.
Also, Joshua 10 is NOT a "poetic passage".
Now, for the details.
Before we get into this, however, let us be perfectly clear that government-based conspiracy (e.g. JFK assassination, 9-11 terrorist attack) are not part of our mission, while some science-based ones like flat earth or geocentrism are, hence the focus on these two below.
I don't see why "geocentrism" could equal a "science based one" i e conspiracy theory.
Like Evolution from amoeba to man, Heliocentrism and Acentrism and Modern Cosmography are usually at least on some level presented as being conclusions. Hence they can be wrong conclusions. Unless the one concluding reasoned right, of course. And not actively conspiring is not a guarantee of reasoning right. There is sth between conspiring to keep the public in dark and being as clearheaded as one is truthful in public discourse : namely reasoning wrong and doing so routinely because one wrong reason - or one wrong mode of reasoning even - is part of one's culture.
That is all I claim to denigrate either Evolutionists in general or Heliocentrics in general with. No need to say they are all conspiring.
The moon landings are also fair game for us, but only because they are part of (and clearly refute) the flat earth and geocentrism debates and also touch on the ‘how do we know what we know’ aspect of teaching biblical creation, basic science, and important ideas in the Bible. Our desire is not to isolate anyone so much as to encourage them to put on their thinking caps.
I am fairly neutral on Moon landing issue and curious. If I already have "the thinking cap" on, how about treating me accordingly?
I do not think it touches on geocentrism. For a certain Chaberlot, Frédéric, Swiss astronomer and science writer, of course moon landers have given the final positive proof of earth turning, since observing it to do so from Moon. I already answered that the observations from Moon can as easily be explained by "Earth's observed rotation" being parallactic and the real movement being that of Moon around Earth once every 25 hours. In other words, as to strict proof, this observation proves no more than our daily one of seeing Earth non-moving and celestial bodies moving. Indeed, as to probably argument, it proves less, since our daily observations are from where God put all of us, while those observations (if they happened) are from where some rich men put a few of us for a few days of their lives.
Hence, Moon landing is, observationally speaking, irrelevant for Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism. It would obviously be otherwise for Flat Earth, but as I am not into Flat Earth, that is another matter. Also, against Flat Earth there are observations less conspiracy prone, like polar days and polar nights on both poles. Or distant objects partly vanishing under the sea level and binoculars or telescopes allowing us to observe that (a favourite pastime of mine with ferry boats leaving Dragør back to Malmö before me and granny, back when I had binoculars).
How is it with kinetically speaking? In fact, the compound speed through space coordinates of solar system (not counting if that one is further moving fast through galaxy or galaxy through universe or multiverse), the speed you experience according to a Heliocentric standing on equator of a rotating Earth which is also spinning around the Sun, is about equal to the speed a Geocentric has to attribute in local movement to Armstrong on the Moon, if he came there.
In other words, I am not saying he had to endure any faster speed than you are saying we all endure. And this counting local movement.
If Newtonian gravitation is true, Armstrong experienced six times less gravity while on Moon. (If, etc ...). This means that the same speed would have been easier for him to bear.
Even more, on second considerations, I consider Moon is mainly moving with the aether. It is only movement in relation to aether which has vectorial physical properties (this comes in handy when explaining geostationary satellites, if you are geocentric). So, Moon is doing a full circle around Earth in 24 h 50 minutes. Aether, with and in which Moon moves, is doing so in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. What is the difference in local angular speed?
Let's count minutes per minutes, angular per temporal.
360°/(23*60 + 56) = 60*360 ' / (23*60 + 56) = 15.0417827298050139 min / min.
60*360 ' / (24*60 + 50) = 14.4966442953020134 min / min
So Armstrong was not experiencing a rotational movement of 14.4966442953020134 min / min vectorially, but only:
15.0417827298050139 - 14.4966442953020134 = 0.5451384345030005
Only this difference, what moon is lagging behind the general movement of the aether, would be vectorially relevant for his wellbeing.
In other words, Armstrong would on my view (if he came there) have had to deal with far less physical commotion than we all have to deal with if Heliocentrism is true. Hence, his possible moonlanding if genuine cannot be used to argue Heliocentrism from the fact he survived the speed of the Moon either.
This cannot be returned in equal measure by a Heliocentric, since as Michelson-Morley proves, an aether is only possible if Earth is not moving through space.
The atheopaths want to paint you into a corner. They often claim that the Bible teaches X (flat earth, geocentrism, etc.) and, since you believe the Bible, you must believe X, too. In response, many people then say, “Why yes, I do believe the Bible. Therefore X must be true and I will defend it.” But this is incredibly wrong! First, who made the skeptic an expert in Bible?
When it comes to Flat Earth, neither Sceptics nor certain Haredim Jews are experts in Bible. Both (and therefore also Hebrew Root Christians like Rob Skiba II) say the Bible teaches Flat Earth.
When it comes to Geocentrism, St Robert Bellarmine is and was in his time an expert in the Bible, who took on King James VI & I, the not author but authoriser of your version, who piqued himself on being well read. Please note that in his debate with Galileo, while judging his first book, he did not appeal exclusively or even mainly to what you would call "poetic passages", he appealed to Joshua's long day. As Sungenis has gone through in great detail. And as CMI has time after time avoided to enter on, when it comes to Geocentric implications.
There is a danger in rejecting evolution. By this we do not mean to indicate that evolution is right, but that if one does reject it they need to do so for the right reasons. Once someone comes to the conclusion that the majority of the scientists in the world are wrong about something, the next obvious question is, “What else are they wrong about?” But this is not the right question! Instead, they should be asking, “Why are they wrong?” Here the answer is plain to see. The majority of modern scientists have accepted a certain philosophy called naturalism.
The two questions are connected. If you are correct - as you are - to say they are wrong about Evolution due to a certain philosophy called naturalism, you should ask as follow up "what else are they wrong about due to naturalism".
My early experience of debating Heliocentrics, before more and more tried to stamp me as a "sociopath with an internet account", which stopped the debate, was that one after another rejected my Geocentric view, not because there were observations I couldn't account for, but because my accounting for them by God turning the aether around Earth (all the way up to the fixed stars) and by angels moving celestial bodies in relation to the aether, did not really seem a big hit with these, precisely, naturalists.
I have seen a purported Geocentric (at least he is friends with Sungenis and is on a Geocentric group on FB) take a stance like "Well, that's. Not. Really. Necessary." Naturalistic bias.
Some purport not to be naturalists, and say that angels moving the misnamed so called parallax and stellar aberration and Chandler wobble of celestial bodies would be deceptive. Neither less or more than allowing the C14 content or the K / Ar ratio in a bone or a piece of lava to spell out ages which contradict the Bible. And, as we come to age, I came to Geocentrism this time (I had flirted with it in my teens) over a debate on age of universe in which - as you may be aware - Distant Starlight is one of the arguments used by opposing side.
Now, for Moon Landing:
Several alternate theories unfairly and inaccurately pick on government bodies like NASA or the UN. But NASA is not a person. It is a government institution that employs thousands of people. It would be impossible to create a conspiracy of this scale and nature, and it would be impossible to maintain it in the face of so many contrary witnesses. ... Indeed, the weakness of any conspiracy is one of the main things to have convinced former corrupt Nixon staffer Chuck Colson of the fact of the Resurrection:
I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.
So belief in conspiracy theories inadvertently undermines a powerful apologetic for the Resurrection.
Well, actually Watergate is anecdotal, and its spill might have been programmed to undermine conspiracy theories - if there was a conspiracy behind the openly revealed one.
But my take is this : on Moon Landings a conspiracy is still possible. Most employees of NASA at all involved would be so as bona fide observers of what looked like them to a genuine entering and not leaving before take off.
You ask a stage magician how these witnesses could have been fooled. And then ask them how St John could have been fooled about crucifixion or St Thomas the Twin about the Resurrection. It is easier to make a conspiracy faking a moon landing than to make one faking Death and Resurrection of Christ.
And this fact, which I have pointed out, is an asset for Apologetics - especially as long as one can be open to even Moon Landing being genuine, which I am.
Also, there is a little difference between "no spill" and "no spill believed by the common public or admitted by authorities". With Armstrong, there is a footage of a man who confronted him and called him a liar. A cook? Perhaps. That is certainly what conspirators would like us to believe if it was a conspiracy. Other possibility (not sure if true and not sure there are no other ones) : he could have been a NASA employee who wanted to spill the beans, got eliminated socially by being stamped as a cook, then got out recently and said his story. Both possibilities are possible. As is the theory he was a doctrinaire, having concluded that Armstrong had to be lying, of course. To some this would be equivalent to "a cook", not to me.
I also see some problem with words like:
Several alternate theories unfairly and inaccurately pick on government bodies like NASA or the UN.
In Holy Land, Herod the Great is a national hero (he built the Masada fort after all), which may be one reason why my grandfather did not opt for Aliyah. Is St Matthew "unfairly and inaccurately" picking on him when describing the slaughter of the innocents?
In fact, keeping that slaughter unmentioned outside Christian "conspiracy theorists" as we may have been termed with slight anachronism of wording by those not accepting the true Messiah would have been harder than keeping Moon conspiracy mostly unmentioned and when mentioned those mentioning it decredibilised.
This feeling of ‘specialness’ can be attractive, and it is a psychological trap into which many have fallen lately.
So is the feeling of "specialness" in analysing feelings of others and denouncing psychological traps into which they have fallen. Hey, we didn't fall into that trap, but we can point to those who did!
In other words, the phrase is unwarranted speculation into other people's motivations, when secret, rather than actually dealing fairly and squarely with their arguments.
As to my own experience of debating above or other points I brought up but did not fully here support, I'll link below to the places where I did or debates where I experienced such attitudes.
Hans Georg Lundahl
- deretour : "Moontruth"? Why?
Relevant to a moon landing, if real, being no proof of Heliocentrism or proper rotation of Earth.
- Bad Astronomy : That NASA look
By Phil Plait | July 26, 2010 12:00 pm
Relevant to NASA involving some culture of scoffers, and to debates around what conspiracy theoretically could have been about.
- Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
[links to other posts in same series]
Relevant to concept of aether as useful when it comes to geostationary satellites.
- På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : (till #2 fortsättn än längre) + astronomens ingripande
Relevant because of "Japp. Och om du vill tro på magi är det helt upp till dig." ... "Änglaväsen eller inte, så fungerar universum i alla fall på ett sätt som det går att ställa upp matematiska formler för." Get this translated, these are words by an astronomer who got into correspondence with my codebater on a forum. While the post is on this blog from 2008, it mirrors a post on a defunct site which mirrored original debate far earlier, some time 2001 - 2003. This is relevant to early evidence of my theory being dismissed because of naturalism.
- Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Geocentrism, Social Reactions + Try at Debate
Relevant to my position lately getting stamped as that of a sociopath or someone seeking attention. Though, yesterday and today it seems to be "taking off".