North - South

[TheoriaApophasis]

Is this your delusional hogwash?


https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

The Flat-Earth Bible
© 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald




How about this one, did you know your bible NOWHERE teaches anything about an immortal soul.


NOWHERE


ipso facto, Judeo-Christianity is Nihilistic


http://www.robertwr.com/resurrection.pdf


In all 870 times that nehpheshs (soul) is used it is always associated with the activity of a living being, including dying, and it never implies anything about life after the death of the living being



What does the Bible say about an immortal soul and/or spirit? Together soul and spirit are used about 1,600 times in the Bible, but not one time is immortal ever used in the same verse with either one, “immortal soul or an immortal spirit,” “deathless or never dying soul or a never dying spirit” is not in the Bible, not even in the King James Version. Immortal and immortality is not in the Old Testament, the promise of immortality is given to no one. In the New Testament, immortal is used only one time, immortality is used six times, all six by Paul. What does he say?

1. "Now unto the King eternal, immortal" (1 Timothy 1:17).

2. Only God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16).

3. Christ "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10).

4. "To them (Christians) that...seek for glory and honor and immortality" (Romans 2:7).

5. "This mortal must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53) at the resurrection.

6. "This mortal shall have put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:54) after the resurrection. This mortal person must put on immortality, not this soul that is already immortal must put on immortality.

Why are we to "seek for immortality" if we are born immortal? Why will we "put on immortality" if the only part of us that will ever be immortal has been immortal from birth (or as some believe - before birth)? The fact that a person must "seek for...immortality" and immortality must be "put on" at the resurrection is conclusive proof that a person does not now have immortality, nor does a person have some immaterial, immortal something in them that cannot die. If Romans 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:53 teaches nothing more, it teaches that no part of a person now possess immortality. Not one passage in the Bible says anyone is now immortal. The immortal soul theology is from pagan philosophy, if all have a deathless soul, and we are told that this deathless soul is the only thing that will ever be immortal, and it is already immortal, the resurrection is made to be useless.





As such, your religion is Nihilism. Defecto without debate.



There exists NOT ONE PASSAGE in the bible about an "IMMORTAL SOUL"


no where, period

[cikljamas]

Funny guy, you have no plausible RE arguments, so you would like now to shift discussion to another path?

However, i am not going to play this game, you should have left this thread anyway, remember?

But i could give you just a short lesson for free:

The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

And really, they didn't die instantly (phisically), but they did die spiritually (they lost phisical immortality and three other primordial gifts)...

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman (Holly Marie, mother of Christ),
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
[B]he (Christ) will crush your head (death),
and you will strike his heel.”

Redeeming our sins Christ gives us back our phisical immortality too!

[TheoriaApophasis]

Funny guy, you have no plausible RE arguments,

Yes, no plausible arguments for a spherical earth. none whatsoever.


Suggest you return to taking your meds.



Wicked serpents eh?



"original sin" is the "Original Sin" of ALL branches of creationism. Its a demented fallacy of pure insanity.

there is no Prima Causa , no first cause, no "original sin". its a demented pile of twisted insanity.






Clearly you are mentally ill. Seek help for this affliction.

[Ernst]

You know Ernst, given your ability of reasonable thinking i could say that you are the only one person who came by to this thread (beside/after Saros) so far, with who i could seriously discuss,....

I'm flattered, but didn't we just both agree that there was no basis for a serious discussion?

... but what is so terribly ironic and tragic is your relentless readiness to absolutely distort facts, and to "scientifically" forge whole reality....

Really??? What fact did I distort?

...Thus you are perfect example of typical contemporary - utterly immoral scientist!..

Where does morality enter this game?

... I have presented you whole bunch of very simple and very irrefutable evidence, but the simplicity and obviousness of these simple arguments is what makes you (and your immoral friends) so nervous for numerous reasons....

What makes you think I'm nervous? I feel so extremely relaxed...
And why should I be nervous? For what reason?
The only reason I can think of right now is the simplicity of your errors and the fact that there are actually people who fall for this. Yet, it is also this simplicity that gives me faith that you will one day put all this behind you. As I said, these ideas are incompatible with intelligence, and I do not believe you are devoid of intelligence. So I see no reason for excitement of whatever kind.

... Which one among numerous reasons is the one that piss you off the most? ...

Do I miss something here? What makes you think I am pissed off? Trust me on this, I'm cool!

... Share your thoughts with me Ernst and repent....

This conversation is getting a little bit weird-ish!
What thoughts are you talking about?
Why on Earth (flat or not) should I repent????

What is happening here, cikljamas?
You have completely lost me!


Ernst.

[cikljamas]

Theoria, your mental illness perfectly fits demands for joining ISIL, why don't you join to those bastards so that you can abuse whoever cross your path???

Come on, get out from here, and ask for help urgently, you are seriously mentally sick person!!!

[TheoriaApophasis]

Theoria, your mental illness

talk of flat earth and talking snakes.


Yes, you're the sane one here



Seriously. Take whatever meds it is you stopped taking.

[cikljamas]

Really??? What fact did I distort?

Where does morality enter this game?

Do I miss something here? What makes you think I am pissed off? Trust me on this, I'm cool!

This conversation is getting a little bit weird-ish!
What thoughts are you talking about?
Why on Earth (flat or not) should I repent????

What is happening here, cikljamas?
You have completely lost me!


Ernst.

O.K., if you are so perfectly relaxed then i would infer that it means that you are ready to examine my arguments one by one...

So, how about this argument:

Not only that nobody is (and never will be) able to answer to this question: What could be the possible cause for fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis?...but "fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis" is also the ultimate flaw in heliocentric theory, and now i am going to show you HOW and WHY:

Now, in which direction the Earth's axis is oriented at July 3th comparing it with January 3th? It's oriented in the same direction isn't it? You have to be aware that the so called celestial equator presents the same plane which cuts the Earth's "equator". That is to say that the Earth is really the center of the Stellatum. All stars are centered to the Earth, there is no doubt about that.

What we have to determine is HOW and WHY all stars shifts 180 degree at January 3th with respect to their position above the Earth at July 3th.

Heliocentrists assert that the 180 degree shift of all the stars with respect to the Earth happens due to for 180 degree (also) changed position of the Earth with respect to the Sun.

Now, we just don't care about the position of the Sun, because when we look up to the sky at midnight January 3th we see 180 degrees shifted stars with respect to their position which had been at midnight July 3th.

The Earth still stays in exactly the same geometrical position with respect to the allegedly fixed stars, the only difference is that the Earth has been moved straight forward (from the geometrical point of view) for certain amount of miles (negligible regarding position of practically endlessly distant stars (according to heliocentrist's dreams)) after she had allegedly bypassed the Sun making half a circle around it.

So, the Earth is in exactly the same geometrical position at midnight January 3th as it was at the midnight July 3th.

In order to be shifted for any degree with respect to the Earth (which is still in exactly the same geometrical position after alleged 6 month revolution around the Sun), all the stars have to turn around the fixed Earth.

If one takes a small tube and points it at Polaris in the northern hemisphere, fixing it to that point, the star remains visible throughout the entire year. This visibility within a small CPVC tube shows that the earth does not travel in a wide circuit around the sun. If this was the case, the star would not always be visible to the naked eye through the tube. If all those stars in time lapse video change position with the supposed rotation of earth, then there should be an even larger deviation in position over the course of one solar orbit. This fact; however, never receives recognition.

Do not say that the polestar stands in a far away position which is why one can see it always. Even though the stars stand all far away, the supposed rotation of the earth still creates moving stars in the sky. If one should see all the stars move during 24 hours, the entire year with a larger orbital circle should do the same thing with the polestar. It does not occur, so the earth possesses geocentricity and planar characteristics...

The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain
stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.

So, this is first argument that you have to answer to Ernst if you are so relaxed and ready for serious discussion!!!

[Ernst]

cikljamas,

You have not answered any of my questions.

O.K., if you are so perfectly relaxed then i would infer that it means that you are ready to examine my arguments one by one...

No. Being perfectly relaxed is not the same thing as being totally at your service.

So, this is first argument that you have to answer to Ernst if you are so relaxed and ready for serious discussion!!!

I can handle a serious discussion, so much is true, but as we agreed (I repeat it for the 3rd time now) there is no basis for a serious discussion here and I have also explained why I think so.

As for your argument: Please look up the distance Sun-Polaris, call this A. Next look-up the distance Earth-in-July - Earth-in-January call this B.
Calculate B/A.
Make a tube of diameter D and length L such that D/L < B/A.
Use this tube in your experiment and see it fail.

Now, it was a real pleasure, cikljamas. Enjoy your discussion with the others here.

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

My goodness, what are you talking about Ernst? Aren't you aware how small value of 20 arcs of a second really is?

And of course, had you been able to offer plausible and reasonable answer to my very first challenge to you (in our untried serious discussion) you would have become more famous than Einstein, and you know it.

So, since you are not stupid person, your only possible reasonable choice (respond to my challenge to you) was to completely evade this untried serious discussion and escape to your heliocentric dream.

Now, maybe we should recall your own very recent words that you wrote this morning:

Where does morality enter this game?

Do I miss something here? What makes you think I am pissed off? Trust me on this, I'm cool!

This conversation is getting a little bit weird-ish!
What thoughts are you talking about?
Why on Earth (flat or not) should I repent????

What is happening here, cikljamas?
You have completely lost me!

Ernst.

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Flat Earth Theory are the "conspiracy theories" . . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Flat Earthers "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

Goodby Ernst, and repent!

[aljhoa]

"Star Trails over Ilha Grande" (DreamView)

Ilha Grande is located off the coast of Rio de Janeiro state and it is largely preserved and noted for its scenic beauty. The island is one of the most pristine remnants of Brazil's Atlantic rainforest and one of the richest ecosystems in the world.

The above Star-Trails showing the South Pole are from Rio de Janeiro state ,
Master @cikljamas do you agree?


Al

[cikljamas]

@ Al, few pages back, i have shown you (considering "Southern Cross case") why i suspect on the authenticity of these "South Pole" photographs...

If these photographs turned out to be authentic then it would present serious problem for FET, although even then it wouldn't cause automatic rejection of the whole FET, and it wouldn't cause any problem at all for geocentrism as such.

However, if FET ever turned up to be false then the Bible should be discarded as authentic Word of God.

I have enough courage to say that, and you won't find more than just a few Christians in the whole world who would have so much courage to assert what i just have asserted.

Am i fair enough, what do you think?

[Hrothgar]

blah blah blah

I work on simple dichotomy to compare to make distinction to facilitate communication which requires multiple participants and not one person having oratory sex with dead languages.

fact vs. fiction Fact is established (what you might considered founded faith), Fiction is a preconceived of the imagination. over the past century a good bit of fictional speculation has been turned into fact.

Faith is accepting that fiction is fact. Once it is established by repeatable proof it is fact. Fact cannot be fiction as it no longer fits the criteria to those who have seen the proof. Grounded faith as you call it is fact.

spiritualism= Buddha = building your house without a blueprint

religion = blueprint with no measurements = how get to the here after, But you can only do it with faith as fact would tell you to go home and not deal with these losers.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Faith is accepting that fiction is fact.

that statement proves how pathetically delusional you are .

Ive already warned you there are 2 modalities of FAITH, nonsense and logical varieties.

I mind remind your myopic and delusional fanny that any pathetic human who relies on the defectual empirical senses as a point of verity is ignorant in the hyperbolic.

Illusionists make their money and bread off such deluded minds.

[Hrothgar]

face it. the cat is dead

You are talking about Faith as if it were a scale of validity of belief.

What % of faith (founded vs. unfounded) do I need to say Schrödinger's cat is still alive seconds before I open the box? The simple and nonanachronistic answer is "Faith is Alive" as you no doubt will save the cat with the power of the ether ". Psyche! "Face the facts the cat is dead"

What you call faith I call certainty, I can be fairly certain that my investment in an Antarctic taco stand will reap huge rewards and while you can absolutely certain my assumption is insane. Unless I then tell you its part of an extreme snowboarding cruise-line amusement-park. Then you would reassess your estimation of my estimation to either gnarly or awesome.

Me to You glossary
Certainty = Faith
Fact = Founded
Fiction = Unfounded

[TheoriaApophasis]

You are talking about Faith as if it were a scale of validity of belief.

Ohhh my pathetic child.

You are talking about empirical senses as a SCALE of VALIDITY

Illusionists make their living off of suckers like you who trust their senses

Sick people taste sweet things as salty,....... some people with brain issues can actually SMELL COLORS (misfiring in the brain)


tell me WHICH ONE OF YOUR SENSES can 'sniff' out ETHER INERTIA

The most POWERFUL ENERGY in the universe, and your pathetic empirical senses are USELESS to detect it.

Psyche! "Face the facts the cat is dead"
.

Pathetic child, none of your senses can tell if any cat from afar is dead or alive.

The empirical constituents of a DEAD CAT are 100% the same as a LIVING one.

same weight,
same quanta. No difference.
Qualifications are trans-empirical, son.

Faith is a WORD son, drop the words and open your brain (if you have one, which i highly doubt).

What you call faith I call certainty,

There is no such thing as empirical certainty son. It cannot exist, it doesnt exist, it cannot definitionally exist.

Plato said this
Aristotle said this

All the wisest minds of history have declared this.


You, son, are NO PLATO





(Your 10 year old's avatar doesn't help your case any either).