What's up with Kyrie Irving and Flat Earth?

[faylor]

What does NASA (or whoever is behind these vast coverups) have to gain from this lie? What does the world believing in a round earth give them that a flat earth would be a disadvantage to their cause?

I'm all for believing that the people in the government tell a lot of lies to get what they want but the easiest way to figure out if someone is lying is to see what they would have to gain from the lie. How does anyone benefit from a round earth lie?

Basically, it's part of an atheistic system where God is replaced by human government, and it's easier to push atheism in a tiny insignificant random ball than a flat Earth which is at the center of the universe. It's really hard to deny God in a flat Earth where we are the center of the universe. But this is the tip of the iceberg. The atheistic big bang depends on this, as does the theory of atheistic macroevolution.

It's also an easy way to identify people who don't comply with their system so they can be ostracised (for now) or worse if the commies ever finish Barry Obama (soetoro's) work so that people know that happens when you doubt what government schools are brainwashing you to believe.

It's like why is baking a gay wedding cake such a big deal? It's an indirect way of persecuting Christians.

When you control narratives you control the realm of permissible beliefs. When you control permissible beliefs you control permissible behaviors. When you control behaviors you control the people. And this is what the government is in the business of.

If it turned out that the moon landing was a hoax, what would that tell you about NASA?

And also keep in mind that this government is teaching us that the worst genocide in the history of the world, abortion, is fine.

[Tarii_2sweet]

Here goes part 2.

It's so beautiful

[LUPE]

It's so beautiful

Check out part 3 that features the moon.

[Tarii_2sweet]

Check out part 3 that features the moon.

No one can tell me God doesn't exist.

[Tarii_2sweet]

It's beautiful to bad it's infested with a billions of humans....
Killing other humans. A world filled with hurting others..
And all we are doing is debating on what type of
Shape it is.

[The Light Within]

Important questions, Light!



I have been wrestling with questions like that myself! Recently, I came across a simple definition of truth that I liked a lot. It goes right along with Jesus’ claim “I am the way, the truth and the life...”. All truth belongs to and is authored by our Creator.

Truth = Everything from God’s perspective.

I hope to tackle more questions later...

Peace!

Right, and if that's the case, why is truth now being pushed through everyone's opinion? Everybody and their mamas are having opinions and it's being spread through the internet as truth. There's so much confusion out there, how do we begin to sort through all this mess? It seems to me that to be human is simply to endure all this nonsense going on. Either we simply live our lives in a hedonistic manner just living for the now so to speak, or we truly begin to seek the mind of Christ and have this mind throughout our daily lives and interactions with other. I'm really at the point now where I simply just throw my hands up and say okay, what is truth. Now years ago I was truly saved and came out of all this worldly mindset, but that doesn't mean I have all the answers. I'm willing to accept whatever truth needs to be truth if it truly is God's truth. Forget my opinions, forget my take on anything that goes on in this world...what is truth. And therein lies the greatest danger...could anything really go in seeking this?

[Nathan Smart]

Basically, it's part of an atheistic system where God is replaced by human government, and it's easier to push atheism in a tiny insignificant random ball than a flat Earth which is at the center of the universe. It's really hard to deny God in a flat Earth where we are the center of the universe. But this is the tip of the iceberg. The atheistic big bang depends on this, as does the theory of atheistic macroevolution.

It's also an easy way to identify people who don't comply with their system so they can be ostracised (for now) or worse if the commies ever finish Barry Obama (soetoro's) work so that people know that happens when you doubt what government schools are brainwashing you to believe.

The government is currently a majority of Republicans who, by and large, are Christians. So, who is pushing this narrative? And what about all these guys: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religion_in_space If they aren't atheists (and they are Christians), why would they also be peddling these lies when they work for the people supposedly pushing them? Why wouldn't they blow a hole in the conspiracy and leak the truth?

AND WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY PAY SO MUCH MONEY to trick people into becoming atheists? Oh, and the plan is failing miserably BTW. There are plenty of Christians who believe in a round earth and have not given up their faith.

It's like why is baking a gay wedding cake such a big deal? It's an indirect way of persecuting Christians.

This isn't a fair comparison. If this case goes through and Christian bakers are forced to make cakes for ALL people and not just ones with the same Christian beliefs, then EVERYONE will have to follow that ruling. Atheists will have to bake cakes for Christians. Muslims will have to back cakes for Satanists. This isn't an case about Christian values - it's a case about discrimination based on religious belief.

BTW, If you think being forced to bake a cake is "persecution" I have a couple of lion-dinner people I'd like you to meet.

When you control narratives you control the realm of permissible beliefs. When you control permissible beliefs you control permissible behaviors. When you control behaviors you control the people. And this is what the government is in the business of.

So, do you think America was founded as a Christian nation? If so, do you think a Christian nation should try to control its people's beliefs and make sure they are following Christian doctrine?

And also keep in mind that this government is teaching us that the worst genocide in the history of the world, abortion, is fine.

For those playing at home, it only took three pages on a message board for a conservative Christian to bring up abortion (and gay marriage, for that matter) in a totally unrelated topic.

[faylor]

For those playing at home, it only took three pages on a message board for a conservative Christian to bring up abortion (and gay marriage, for that matter) in a totally unrelated topic.

[Nathan Smart]

Hehe!

Did you have any thoughts on what I wrote in my post, though?

[The Light Within]

The government is currently a majority of Republicans who, by and large, are Christians. So, who is pushing this narrative? And what about all these guys: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religion_in_space If they aren't atheists (and they are Christians), why would they also be peddling these lies when they work for the people supposedly pushing them? Why wouldn't they blow a hole in the conspiracy and leak the truth?

AND WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY PAY SO MUCH MONEY to trick people into becoming atheists? Oh, and the plan is failing miserably BTW. There are plenty of Christians who believe in a round earth and have not given up their faith.



This isn't a fair comparison. If this case goes through and Christian bakers are forced to make cakes for ALL people and not just ones with the same Christian beliefs, then EVERYONE will have to follow that ruling. Atheists will have to bake cakes for Christians. Muslims will have to back cakes for Satanists. This isn't an case about Christian values - it's a case about discrimination based on religious belief.

BTW, If you think being forced to bake a cake is "persecution" I have a couple of lion-dinner people I'd like you to meet.



So, do you think America was founded as a Christian nation? If so, do you think a Christian nation should try to control its people's beliefs and make sure they are following Christian doctrine?



For those playing at home, it only took three pages on a message board for a conservative Christian to bring up abortion (and gay marriage, for that matter) in a totally unrelated topic.

Absolutely great break down! Good questions!

[faylor]

The government is currently a majority of Republicans who, by and large, are Christians. So, who is pushing this narrative? And what about all these guys: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Religion_in_space If they aren't atheists (and they are Christians), why would they also be peddling these lies when they work for the people supposedly pushing them? Why wouldn't they blow a hole in the conspiracy and leak the truth?

AND WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY PAY SO MUCH MONEY to trick people into becoming atheists? Oh, and the plan is failing miserably BTW. There are plenty of Christians who believe in a round earth and have not given up their faith.



This isn't a fair comparison. If this case goes through and Christian bakers are forced to make cakes for ALL people and not just ones with the same Christian beliefs, then EVERYONE will have to follow that ruling. Atheists will have to bake cakes for Christians. Muslims will have to back cakes for Satanists. This isn't an case about Christian values - it's a case about discrimination based on religious belief.

BTW, If you think being forced to bake a cake is "persecution" I have a couple of lion-dinner people I'd like you to meet.



So, do you think America was founded as a Christian nation? If so, do you think a Christian nation should try to control its people's beliefs and make sure they are following Christian doctrine?



For those playing at home, it only took three pages on a message board for a conservative Christian to bring up abortion (and gay marriage, for that matter) in a totally unrelated topic.

first, good questions. i can tell by how you are interpreting my response that your initial question was more of a statement than anything, which is fine, I (almost) always appreciate a good debate.

To reiterate the main point in my post, i was simply providing an argument for what the deep state (IE Nasa, cia, fbi, nsa...basically the unelected permagovernment) has to gain by pushing this particular narrative, which is potentially one of the many lies we are fed on a daily basis. I basically was making two separate arguments, which I'll outline below:

First, grant for the sake of argument, that people at the top at nasa know that the earth is flat and created by God.

• Premise 1: It is easier to push an atheistic narrative where humans are devoid of any intrinsic value in the current model than the flat earth model. Ball earth is a soft premise for things like atheistic evolution and naturalism.
• Premise 2: People who stop answering to God as their father/creator need new narratives to fill the gap,
• Premise 3: Beliefs determine behavior
• Premise 4: When the government is the one that funds and controls our education system and gets to choose the acceptable narratives that fill this gap, they are in control of behavior even if we have free will and are acting in our own self interests. It's called the illusion of choice. I know you need to be hydrated to survive. If we were in the dessert and you were dying of thirst and I offerred you coke, pepsi, sprite, etc but no water, you would choose one of those in your free will. But they're all soda, and they all will probably dehydrate you in the end and leave you dead.
• Conclusion: The government increases its influence by pushing the ball earth theory

And, an alternate argument

• Premise 1: The government has an interest in self preservation,
• Premise 2: The biggest threat to a government from within is organized dissent
• Premise 3: People get organized and dissent when their their livelihood is threatened. This can happen during financial crises, social conflict, autocratic power, etc.
• Premise 4: When people do get organized and dissent, the government needs an alibi for the necessary crackdowns or a scapegoat (ie the jews, scholars, the rich, catholics, bhuddists, etc) for its problems. Therefore, the government benefits from the existence of scapegoats and disposable classes of people as a sort of social insurance policy that can be used during times of unrest.
• Premise 5: People outnumber the government, so the scapegoats must be basically demonized by the rest of society
• Premise 6: The best scapegoats are those whose beliefs pose the biggest threat to government.
• Premise 7: God's government is the only thing that can wield more authority than human government, therefore christianianty and belief in God in general poses the biggest threat to any government, next in line is the independently wealthy.
• Premise 8: God is more likely in a flat earth than the current model
  
• Conclusion: The government has a vested interest in teaching ball earth and keeping the rest of us in the dark.

Notice what I am not saying. First, I never assume it is impossible to have flat earth atheists or ball earth christians. I'm simply stating that it creates preconditions that tilt the pendulum towards the atheism side. As you know, if you've studied at a university in the states, a huge amount of christians abandon their faith in school because of what they are taught in their science classes so I really don't see the difficulty with this point. I am implicitly assuming that it's possible for scientific consensus to be wrong, however, which I think every scientist believes as many of the most sacred beliefs in deviated from the prior consensus and many of the most venerated scientists were ostracised by their peers for their discoveries which later became the new consensus.

So please read over my arguments and let me know if they are sound (the conclusion follows from the premises). If they are, then please point out which of the premises you have an issue with and I'm happy to respond, as I hope this deals with hopefully some of the questions you have.

[Nathan Smart]

Assuming your two arguments are correct - basically, that the government is involved in trying to crush Christianity so it can keep us in check (I know that's distilling it down to its essence but I don't think it's incorrect) - here are my questions:

1) Why does a flat earth model make God more likely?
2) What does a round earth do that a flat earth doesn't do, that would contradict God?
3) Can God make a round earth? or does it need to be flat in order for his promises to come true?
4) Are other countries involved as well? How much money are they putting towards this effort? Are Christians in other countries losing their faith over a round earth too?

Here are some of my unanswered questions (and some more related ones) from my earlier post that I still think are relevant:

1) Why would the government spend SO much money on NASA for a project like this? There are plenty of ways to crush religions without spending BILLIONS of dollars (take a look at Communist Russia).
2) Do you believe Obama is a part of this deep state system and if he is, why didn't he continue funding for the space program (after Bush put in a stop-payment plan) so that he could keep the ruse going even longer?
3) Why are Christians in these government positions spreading this myth if it's hurting their faith?
4) Why aren't Republicans - who HATE spending and are mostly Christians - putting a stop to this wasteful program that isn't doing much to put a dent in the Christian faith?

Lastly:

If a round earth conspiracy is so damaging to the belief in God that Americans are losing their faith in droves when they are confronted with it, why doesn't the church, itself, speak up about it? Why didn't Billy Graham go on about it? Why doesn't Franklin Graham continue that tradition? Why doesn't Liberty University teach a Flat Earth course? If the church is in danger of losing their members to the round earth conspiracy, why isn't that the first class of every church membership course?

[faylor]

Assuming your two arguments are correct -

If either of my two arguments is logically sound and all of the premises are true, then the debate is over. It doesn't matter what the implications are (unless they refute one of my premises) or whether I answer your additional questions. If it's a sound argument and the premises are true, even if I couldn't answer your questions, the debate is over.

If I proved to you that it's more likely that the moon landing was a hoax than real, for example, you can't say "that can't be true because it would mean my 3rd grade teacher was wrong." That's an appeal to consequences, and is a fallacious way of reasoning. Similarly, you can't say "that can't be true, because that would mean a lot of people are wrong." That's called the bandwagon fallacy.

Now I'm wondering are you actually trying to have a debate? If so, what proposition? I can't follow every rabbit trail, provide a thorough answer, then have you basically ignore my argument and say "assuming you just proved your point, now answer these 10 additional questions." It seems to me that you may be moving the goalposts from the initial direction of our interaction, which was me providing an answer to the below:

What does NASA (or whoever is behind these vast coverups) have to gain from this lie? What does the world believing in a round earth give them that a flat earth would be a disadvantage to their cause?

If you wanted to debate something like how can a lot of people be wrong simultaneously I'm happy to do that, but you really need to figure out what proposition you are trying to debate first before expecting a detailed response from someone.

[Tarii_2sweet]

I'm trying understand the argument what do flat or round earth have to do with destroying faith? It's not in the Bible what shape it is so..how?

Yes, I'm serious.

[Nathan Smart]

If either of my two arguments is logically sound and all of the premises are true, then the debate is over. It doesn't matter what the implications are (unless they refute one of my premises) or whether I answer your additional questions. If it's a sound argument and the premises are true, even if I couldn't answer your questions, the debate is over.

If I proved to you that it's more likely that the moon landing was a hoax than real, for example, you can't say "that can't be true because it would mean my 3rd grade teacher was wrong." That's an appeal to consequences, and is a fallacious way of reasoning. Similarly, you can't say "that can't be true, because that would mean a lot of people are wrong." That's called the bandwagon fallacy.

Now I'm wondering are you actually trying to have a debate? If so, what proposition? I can't follow every rabbit trail, provide a thorough answer, then have you basically ignore my argument and say "assuming you just proved your point, now answer these 10 additional questions." It seems to me that you may be moving the goalposts from the initial direction of our interaction, which was me providing an answer to the below:

If you wanted to debate something like how can a lot of people be wrong simultaneously I'm happy to do that, but you really need to figure out what proposition you are trying to debate first before expecting a detailed response from someone.

I'm not interested in having a "debate" using rules from the Argumentation 101 class I took in college. I'm interested in the answers to my questions. You're arguments don't have evidence to back them up - they are just assumptions - and they really can't be proven because no one here has access to that kind of information (if it does/did exist) so you're talking in hypotheticals and asking us to take them as read because YOU wrote them down on this message board.

Honestly, let's just leave it here because when you are so "deep" into a conspiracy that no amount of information would convince you otherwise - simply because the only way to gain evidence is from the people you don't trust - it's impossible to go any further. I can show you mountains of evidence that the earth is round and spins around the sun but you will discount it all because it came from the "deep state" in your mind. There's literally nothing I can do to convince you otherwise because none of the people you DO trust have access to a rocket ship to go into space. Do you understand how impossible this "debate" is? Your information is all based on your assumptions that the US government (and I guess the rest of the world too) is working together to destroy Christianity by any means possible. You don't have any evidence for this, nor can you possibly get any real evidence because you don't have access to the people or information that would prove it. So it's useless for you to try to convince me or anyone else really.

The truth is, it doesn't matter if the earth is flat or round. All that matters is if Jesus came down off that cross and rose again. I believe that and obviously you believe that too, so it looks like we're brothers and we can move along!

PEACE

[faylor]

I'm not interested in having a "debate" using rules from the Argumentation 101 class I took in college. I'm interested in the answers to my questions..... Honestly, let's just leave it here...

I'll give you the last word on this one, although I will say I'm disappointed as you seem like a smart ( pun intended) guy and I would have loved to finish this debate and address your questions in an orderly fashion. I will say though that in your short time on this board you have made it much better by being both thoughtful in your posts and sharing a trove of classic chh footage that probably nobody else in the world has so you are truly appreciated.

[Caleb]

Your posts are a blessing to me, Nathan! Thank you so much for your questions, responses, comments and participation! I don't have time to write much, but wanted to address this briefly:

I can show you mountains of evidence that the earth is round and spins around the sun but you will discount it all because it came from the "deep state" in your mind.

What evidence are you able to show that is not based on someone else's observations, images, reports, teachings?

You see, with "debates" like this, it truly can spin (pun intended, hah!) out of control pretty quickly by going back and forth with other people's opinions, perspectives, observations....etc.

Which is why I have repeatedly said that each person will have to do their own research and observations (including experimentation, if there is interest, time, resources...etc.).

As others have mentioned (Light especially), we are living in an age where opinions abound, and the proliferation of sharing thoughts and ideas is unprecedented.

In that context, I am compelled that we would do well to gather as much "on the ground" and "first-hand" information as possible, before we make assertions about what we proclaim as "truth". Of course there will always be the element of faith when it comes to any reality that we cannot physically observe (i.e. none of us have physically met Jesus in person, and yet we profess belief in his physical resurrection from the dead). But when it comes to something as physically observable as the earth we live on, I believe less "faith" is required to know it's true nature.

For example:

- Water always finds it's level. I have yet to see water curve and stick to a spinning ball, in ANY application other than the reported sticking of all the oceans on the earth to a large spinning ball, and if something as massively significant as "gravity" is the reason it works on earth, surely, as science dictates, it should be repeatable.
- I see the sun, moon and stars "move" overhead, but I have never seen (or felt) the earth move (obviously this "debate" goes back hundreds of years, but what can be "proven" in regards to whether it's the sun or earth that moves, using our own senses?). I have watched many youtube videos, and read lots of articles (books) about experiments on this matter, and remain unconvinced of the heliocentric theories taught as irrefutable truth by public education.
- I have yet to observe a curve with my own eyes, and using mathematical calculations based on the reported size of the globe, I should be able to see the curve at the heights I've traveled in an airplane. Yet the horizon is always flat, and rises to my eye level. There are many people on youtube and other places that say "I see the curve of the earth when I'm in an airplane", to which I say "fine, good for you". I have not observed the curve (as MANY others have not as well, including pilots). But again, it gets back to personal observation.

As to the question of "what does it matter?", THAT my dear brothers and sister (love you Tarii2sweet!), is worthy of no small discussion, in my opinion.

Later guys! Love you all so much! It's such a privilege for me to read your posts!

[The Light Within]

There's literally nothing I can do to convince you otherwise because none of the people you DO trust have access to a rocket ship to go into space.

Oh yes they do!!! Check this bad boy out!



This man is about to launch himself in his homemade rocket to prove the Earth is flat https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...lat/ar-BBFs6N8

“It’ll shut the door on this ball earth,” Hughes said in a fundraising interview with a flat-Earth group for Saturday’s flight. Theories discussed during the interview included NASA being controlled by round-Earth Freemasons and Elon Musk making fake rockets from blimps.

Hughes promised the flat-Earth community that he would expose the conspiracy with his steam-powered rocket, which will launch from a heavily modified mobile home — though he acknowledged that he still had much to learn about rocket science.

“This whole tech thing,” he said in the June interview. “I’m really behind the eight ball.”

[The Light Within]

One question comes to mind though: In the heliocentric model stars would not follow us through infinite space as they do now this perfectly? Wouldn't we see different constellations constantly? Or is this simply because these stars are so far away?

[The Light Within]

Man.....this whole flat earth thing is getting crazy. We might as well start discussing other questions: Did secret agents plant explosives in the Twin Towers to fake a terror attack? Did the Mafia undertake a hit against President Kennedy? Do interdimensional lizards secretly interbreed with humans while running the planet? For people who believe flat earth I guess you can’t really change their minds with photographic evidence or mathematical proof of a round Earth. To believe in a theory like this one, you have to go way, way past the normal threshold for questioning expertise and hierarchies of intellectual knowledge. It’s fun for us to have our perceptions pulled apart in fictional thrillers and mysteries, but we consider a narrative satisfying only when it also offers a way to put things back together.

Now granted, I'm interested to the point of really wanting to know truth, yes. But at what cost? People who believe in flat Earth have already decided that the world around them can’t possibly be what it seems, and so a conspiracy theory becomes a nice way of efficiently explaining what would otherwise be a confounding world. It’s hard to tell the difference between a joke and sincerity. In terms of judging where the joke begins and ends, it’s almost impossible to tell at this point.

So in regards to your initial post concerning Kyrie Irving, in September, he told a Boston radio host he was just kidding about being a flat Earther. He just wanted to have an “open conversation” and prove a point: “If I believe that the world is flat, and you believe that the world is round, does that knock my intellectual capacity, or the fact that I can think different things than you can?” It’s hard to call him on it. He’s just joking.

So have we really been believing a lie all our lives? Is this some sort of joke? It seems for the moment flat earth is here to stay...