Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

They will say it is CGI, or their kids never went to space, instead NASA sent them to a super realistic cinema and play space footage to them.

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

We already see what the religious do.
They are mainly split into 2 groups.
One claims it is all fake and digs their heels in and says their religion must be true. These are the kind of people that look at a direct contradiction between reality and their religion, and say reality is wrong.
The other instead just manipulates their religion to pretend it is all correct and doesn't contradict.

The other people that recognise the contradiction and accept reality have pretty much already discarded the religion.

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

Ironic you say that.

When the very inventor of rockets in Nazi Germany first built the V1 and V2 rockets which hit London from miles away, and when the war ended, America asked him to build rockets for a new agency called NASA. He was the first leader OF NASA in fact.

He built the famous Saturn V rockets which supposedly flew men to the moon and back to Earth.

When in the middle of it all, before he built the Saturn V, somehow he turned to Christianity, and loved the Bible, but why would he ever decide to do such a thing, when he was so focused on developing rockets for NASA?

We all know about what is said in the Bible, more or less. We all know about the Firmament as well.

So why would he suddenly embrace the Bible, and specifically the Firmament?

The Gideon Bible he had was given to him by a friend who was a Gideon. They read the KJV of the Bible, which describes the Firmament many times in the Bible.

What is most important to know about the Firmament in the KJV Bible is that it’s described as a real object or barrier above the Earth, which holds the waters above Earth and divides or separates the waters from below, ON the Earth.

Later versions of the Bible wrongly describe the Firmanent as an ‘expanse’ or ‘skies’ above Earth. That is simply wrong, as the Firmament holds up the waters above Earth, divides them from the waters below on Earth!

I’m absolutely sure he flew rockets straight up and saw them hit the Firmament, over and over again. 

That is why he turned to Christianity, he saw that the Firmament did exist above Earth, as described in the KJV Bible.

Those of you who claim it is described as an expanse or skies above Earth, are looking at false versions of the Bible, because it cannot be the skies, which hold no waters above Earth, doesn’t divide and separate the waters above Earth from those below it, on the Earth.

His favorite passage from the Bible described Gods handiwork creating the Firmament. His tombstone refers to this passage, in fact.

Unless you think he didn’t know it held the waters above Earth as a solid object or barrier. I’m sure he knew all about the Firmament as described in the KJV Bible, as a solid barrier above Earth which holds in the waters, separates them from the waters on Earth.

There’s no version of the Bible which describes ‘endless space’ or ‘universe without end all around Earth’!

At worst, they describe it as an expanse or skies above Earth, wrongly of course, but nothing about an endless universe or space! 

The Bible also describes the stars and Sun and Moon as being under the Firmament, so if you want to believe that the Firmament which holds waters is the whole endless universe, it cannot hold the waters above Earth in endless ‘space’, so that cannot be what the Firmament is, nor skies or an expanse!

You cannot ignore that it holds the waters above Earth, it is a fact.

It only makes sense that it is a solid barrier above Earth holding the waters within it, nothing about endless ‘space’ or ‘universe’ works at all, as much as you wish it did, it’s complete nonsense.


Your argument is that he saw his rockets fly up into ‘space’, out of all view, going through the blue skies into ‘space’, flying through ‘space’ to the moon, and he thought it was the Firmament described in the Bible holding waters above Earth somehow???!!

Why would he see a rocket flying up into ‘space’ mean the Firmament described in the Bible holding waters above Earth? 

He’d already think there’s ‘endless space’ before rockets flew up into ‘space’, why would he think it’s about the Firmament?

If he actually DID see his rockets fly up into ‘space’, he’d know there ISNT any Firmament at all, and he’d NOT believe the Bible, based on that alone!!

The last thing he’d want to do is have his favorite passage be about the Firmament, the one thing he would KNOW was not true in the Bible!

I’m absolutely sure he flew rockets straight up and saw them hit the Firmament, over and over again.

You mean you foolishly believe that crap.

In his youth he was a non-practicing Lutheran.
He chose to defect to the US, because they had lots of Christians.
There is nothing to suggest he believed in a magic dome, and nothing to suggest he saw rockets crash into this magic dome.

And as we have been over plenty of times, plenty of Christians reject what the Bible says.
So saying the Bible says that, without showing he believes the Bible says that is entirely worthless.

You cannot ignore that it holds the waters above Earth, it is a fact.

Considering that is your baseless BS and not a fact at all, I can reject that.

The simple reality is we have mountains of evidence of rockets going into space.
You have absolutely no evidence that there is any magical dome to stop this.

But how about you try answering the question?
Even if it is just as a hypothetical.

When loads of people are going into space, will you still be saying that about the Bible and using that to say the Bible is complete garbage?

Not long ago, I said that we could prove beyond any doubt if rockets fly up into ‘space’ or not.

If they simply launch them straight upward and remain so for the entire flight, we’d finally see what happens afterwards.

If we see them flying up and up until we see them as a little speck, and go up beyond our view, it would prove there’s no Firmament, and prove that space exists as they told us.

But if they stop flying upward, and hit the Firmament, it would prove they faked it all.

That would settle the whole debate once and for all time.

Now they’re making videos where they show a rocket is well below the blue skies above, but add a ‘black space’ shot from the rocket cameras, supposedly!

Even though we can clearly see it’s below the blue skies, they are faking ‘black space scenes’!

It’s the worst garbage yet done.

By far the great majority of Christians say that the Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally. It is allegory. The people who compiled the Biblical canon knew there were contradictions in it, but that didn't matter, because it was not to be read literally, it was allegory.

The Catholic Inquisition threatened to torture Galileo if he didn't recant his belief that the Earth moves around the sun, but once the evidence was conclusive, the Church, and pretty much all Christians, accepted that the Earth moves around the sun (and is round!).

It was not until Luther that ANYBODY regarded the Bible as an authority on anything, and it wasn't until, much later than that that ANYBODY thought the Bible was to be taken literally. A VERY SMALL minority of Christians today are Bible literalists and think that the Bible is a reliable authority on matters of science.

Of course, flat-earthers today are the worst conspiracy-believers in the world, and if the granddaughter of one of them went to space and came back and told them about it, they'd probably call her a liar, just as they call Neil Armstrong a liar. That's their answer to everything: To every piece of evidence that the Earth is an oblate spheroid with bumps, they claim it's all lies.

Not long ago, I said that we could prove beyond any doubt if rockets fly up into ‘space’ or not.

And when provided evidence of that, you dismiss it, making excuses for why it doesn't meet some ridiculous set of criteria.
i.e. they have proven there is no firmament, but because that doesn't match your fantasy, you reject it.

So no, it wont settle the "debate" once and for all, because lying POS like you have no interest in the evidence. You will dismiss any evidence which doesn't match your delusional fantasy.

Now they’re making videos where they show a rocket is well below the blue skies above

No, they show it through the blue skies, with blue around it.
You are yet to show that there is a magic blue dome.

Even though we can clearly see it’s below the blue skies, they are faking ‘black space scenes’!

No, we can't. You just assert that because you are desperate to pretend your fantasy is true and this evidence which shows you are a lying POS must be rejected at all costs.

By far the great majority of Christians say that the Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally. It is allegory.

Because they are desperate to pretend their religion matches reality and don't want to admit the keystone of their religion is a pile of garbage.

They are quite happy stating something should be interpreted a particular way, until that way is shown to be wrong, a bunch of resistance has ensued for a long time, until eventually they decide it wasn't meant to be interpreted that way or some other BS excuse to pretend the Bible doesn't contradict reality or morality.

One example of that is the flood. Where they claimed Egypt couldn't possibly be as old as it was because the flood would have wiped them out.
But now that story is dismissed as just a story, to pretend the Bible isn't wrong.

I see no reason at all to think it is meant to be taken as just a story or allegory.
But I see plenty that indicates it should be taken as a literal history.
For example, Genesis 5.
What is the point of that in allegory/fiction?
Who cares what the names of these people are and how many years they lived and so on?
It doesn't make any sesnse.
But if it is a historical account showing the family line from Adam to Noah, it does make sense.
i.e. this chapter makes sense as a historical account mean to be taken literally, but not as a story/allegory.

Compare this to Harry Potter, were we are simply told people are descendants, without any grand family tree or even a lineage of descendants.

And if it is meant to be taken as allegory, why not take the entire thing as that, including God and Jesus?

But this just demonstrates my point.
People will believe their religion, and then when something new is discovered which shows it is wrong, there will be some turmoil and then the new majority forms (typically at least the next generation) that says it was never meant to be taken that way and there is problem.

Actually, most Christians today accept science and say that God exists outside the realm of the material universe. I believe the technical term is non-overlapping magesteria. They have their fantasy about a Big Daddy in the Sky who will make everything right, etc., etc., but UNLIKE the flat-earthers, MOST Christians do not deny science. When you talk about Christians believing the earth has four literal corners or is six milennia old because of something in the Bible, you are talking about a lunatic fringe that does not include most Christians.

Most Christians, like most Muslims and most Jews are perfectly well aware that the Earth is a bumpy oblate spheroid and accept science where the real world is concerned, and they don't let their religion interfere with their lives. Except maybe when some (not all!) of them vote for a racist childish ignoramus to lead their country.

I know a lot of Christians (and a lot of Jews, and perhaps a Muslim or two) and nearly all are decent people and not a single one of them (my acquaintances, that is) believes the Earth is flat or that the Bible is a reliable authority on matters of science. I don't believe I've ever met a single flat-earther in real life in my entire very long life. There are just too few of them for there to be much of a chance of ever meeting one except on the internet, where any cult of a handful of people can create a discussion forum.

By the way, I suspect that most of the "flat-earthers" here are just pretending to beieve in FE because they think it's a silly joke. There are probably six or eight people on this board who, due to mental illness, actually believe in FE.

Actually, most Christians today accept science

Yes. Most Christians today accept the parts of the Bible they like and ignore the parts they don't like or that contradict reality.

Like FEers, they believe complete nonsense with no evidence showing it to be true, and when confronted with indisputable evidence that they can't simply dismiss, then they switch to trying to say that is compatible with their beliefs, not caring if it contradicts other parts.

Actually, most Christians believe there's a magical man in the sky who might answer your prayers, and that if they "believe" they'll go to heaven when they die, but beyond that, they don't really believe much of anything. It's just that the lunatic fundamentalists are so loud they seem like they speak for all Christians.

Actually, most Christians believe there's a magical man in the sky who might answer your prayers, and that if they "believe" they'll go to heaven when they die

So complete nonsense with no evidence to show it is true?

It's just that the lunatic fundamentalists are so loud they seem like they speak for all Christians.

More that they show Christianity's true colours which the majority of "believers" are trying to hide from.

If fundamentalists are a problem, fundamentalism isn't the issue, it is what they are following the fundamentals of.

No, they show it through the blue skies, with blue around it.
You are yet to show that there is a magic blue dome.

No, we see it is well below all of the blue waters within the Firmament.

They’ve never flown any rocket straight upward through and beyond the blue ‘skies’.  Isn’t that where you say ‘black endless space’ is?

We certainly cannot see anything of a black space, where the rocket would then be, going beyond the blue, into the black of space, where neither would then be seen.

Any objects that really WOULD be in the black of space, which you claim is beyond all the blue above Earth, would not ever be seen, but space doesn’t exist, and everything we see above Earth is below the blue waters of the Firmament, which is why they all block out part of the blue waters in the Firmament above all of them.

That’s why flying a rocket straight upward directly towards the blue ‘skies’ would prove what is true and what is false, beyond ANY doubt and ANY excuses spewed out.

Don’t give me any more BS excuses about this, they will never launch a rocket upward towards the blue ‘skies’, because it would hit the Firmament walls, and veer off along the walls or crash to Earth.

You claim that the AIR is blue, but it’s entirely clear through nearly all of the air, don’t bs me that we’ve seen any blue below us in a plane, it’s entirely clear, countless images from planes PROVE it is clear, so stop being an idiot who thinks he can change the reality by holding up a few images of a mountain and claiming this proves it is blue below us in planes. I won’t deal with you if you are that delusiional. Common sense I means nothing to you, and I won’t waste any more time trying to explain to you that we see it is entirely clear below us to the surface of Earth.

I can’t deal with nutcases or fools who believe in fairy tales and say they see it is blue below us in a plane, or whatever bs excuse they come up with out of their asses

No, we see it is well below all of the blue waters within the Firmament.

You mean the waters you are yet to demonstrate exist, in the firmament you are yet to demonstrate exist?

They’ve never flown any rocket straight upward through and beyond the blue ‘skies’.

They have.
You have been provided footage of several examples, all of which you dismiss as fake because you can't accept reality.
Is there anything at all in the footage to indicate it is fake? No.
Do you have any reason to suggest it is fake? No, with the sole exception of it not matching your delusional fantasy.
Do you lie about it to pretend it is fake? Yes.
Have those lies been exposed? At least some of them.

We certainly cannot see anything of a black space, where the rocket would then be, going beyond the blue, into the black of space, where neither would then be seen.

Any objects that really WOULD be in the black of space, which you claim is beyond all the blue above Earth, would not ever be seen

You sure do love spouting absolute BS, with no resemblance to reality at all; don't you?
I would ask if you had any idea what it should look like. But it is clear you have absolutely no idea.

The "blackness" of space you are appealing to is similar to the blackness of night, or a dark room.
There is no significant amount of light coming from there, so you don't see it.

The utter crap you are suggesting is akin to saying if some stands outside your window at night and someone else (also outside) shines a torch straight at them so the light would reflect off them and go into your window; that you wouldn't be able to see them because they are in the blackness of night.

And for an added touch, your window can also have a faint blue glow from an edge light.
What you would actually see, is that person lit up, appearing through the window.
But you would foolishly claim that they must be inside your house, before the blue window, because you can see blue around them and you couldn't possibly see them if they were in the blackness of night.

A child could easily see just how utterly stupid that is. But apparently not you.

That’s why flying a rocket straight upward directly towards the blue ‘skies’ would prove what is true and what is false, beyond ANY doubt and ANY excuses spewed out.

Except you are clear proof that is not the case.
You will continue to lie and reject reality at all costs, regardless of what evidence is presented.

I know this because you have been presented this evidence you have asked for, and make up pathetic excuses and reject it.

You claim that the AIR is blue

No. I claim the air scatters light, and scatters shorter wavelengths more than longer wavelengths.
This means when you view the sky at an angle away from the sun, it appears blue.
But if you view it at an angle close to the sun when that light has to go through a large amount of atmosphere, it appears red.
And if you view it without any significant illumination from the sun, it appears black (or clear as some might say).

it’s entirely clear through nearly all of the air

Except that is just your entirely baseless claim you are yet to support in any way.
When that delusional BS of yours was challenged, with a clear sign of blue towards a distant mountain, what was your response? Claim that blue is actually caused by the ground on the mountain.
Again, you just make up baseless BS and make up excuses when that BS is shown to be BS.

Likewise, you entirely ignore the issue of white balancing.

stop being an idiot who thinks he can change the reality by holding up a few images

Says the idiot holding up a few useless images which don't prove anything.

The mountain image was just trying to get you to figure out which of those images was altered. Then I was going to show the full unaltered image, to show how the mountain is clearly seen through blue.

I won’t deal with you if you are that delusiional.

You mean if I am that sane and can so easily refute your delusional BS?

I can’t deal with nutcases or fools who believe in fairy tales

So you can't deal with yourself?

... If fundamentalists are a problem, fundamentalism isn't the issue, it is what they are following the fundamentals of.

Fundamentalists are bigots who diligently search out any excuse to hate people who are in any way different from themselves. It does not matter what their religion is, or what are the true precepts of their religion, or what their "holy" books say. They will twist everything into an excuse to hate.

Christianity is not any one thing. It is a collective term that refers to a large class of religions united by a very few basic (nonsensical) tenets, basically the belief that Jesus is the Christ whose death absolves us of Adam's sin, and that he rose from the dead "on the third day." Beyond that, there are few if any common threads. Some versions of Christianity are exclusionary and judgmental, some are quite humanistic, and some are somewhere in between.

The fundamentalists are a very vocal minority. Christianity, like all religions, is pure idiocy. Most Christians are just ordinary people trying to get through life as best they can.

People are assholes. Christians are just people like everybody else.

Fundamentalists are bigots who diligently search out any excuse to hate people who are in any way different from themselves.

Fundamentalists are those who stick to the fundamentals of the thing they are following.

The reason Christian fundamentalists are so bigoted, is because Christianity is bigoted.
For example, if Christianity didn't say homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death (or other things condemning homosexuality), then Christian fundamentalists wouldn't be saying that.
Some "Christians" deciding to ignore that does not remove the underlying bigotry of Christianity.

Again, fundamentalism is not the problem, what they are following the fundamentals of is.
So if you have a problem with Christian fundamentalism, the problem lies with Christianity, not fundamentalism.

whose death absolves us of Adam's sin

So the thing you claim is just meant to be taken as allegory, which means nothing to absolve anyone of?

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

Going to space or even watching space videos online won't change my mind about my faith. For me, the firmament might as well be the observable universe.

Quote from: Celest Eal on March 24, 2025, 04:54:00 PM

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

Going to space or even watching space videos online won't change my mind about my faith. For me, the firmament might as well be the observable universe.

This is an interesting comment, and is common among deeply religious people: They reject the evidence of their own eyes and their own reason if it conflicts with their faith. Faith, of course, generally comes from being told stuff by people you trust at a very young and impressionable age, or from reading something you trust. You believe the Bible is the Word of God because someone (perhaps your parents, perhaps a pastor) told you it was. Most English speakers read the Bible (if at all) in a translation, and since there are no extant copies of the originals of any of the books, they're reading a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy. And they have many translations to choose from. And the translators had different source copies to translate from. And then you have to interpret what is said because there's always some ambiguity in language.

But if your faith is strong, you will give more weight to your interpretation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of scripture than to your own eyes or the word of a close personal friend or family member. You'd rather believe that a person you know and respect would lie to you, than accept, for example, that they'd been to space or to Antarctica.

Quote

No, they show it through the blue skies, with blue around it.
You are yet to show that there is a magic blue dome.

No, we see it is well below all of the blue waters within the Firmament.

They’ve never flown any rocket straight upward through and beyond the blue ‘skies’.  Isn’t that where you say ‘black endless space’ is?

We certainly cannot see anything of a black space, where the rocket would then be, going beyond the blue, into the black of space, where neither would then be seen.

Any objects that really WOULD be in the black of space, which you claim is beyond all the blue above Earth, would not ever be seen, but space doesn’t exist, and everything we see above Earth is below the blue waters of the Firmament, which is why they all block out part of the blue waters in the Firmament above all of them.

That’s why flying a rocket straight upward directly towards the blue ‘skies’ would prove what is true and what is false, beyond ANY doubt and ANY excuses spewed out.

Don’t give me any more BS excuses about this, they will never launch a rocket upward towards the blue ‘skies’, because it would hit the Firmament walls, and veer off along the walls or crash to Earth.

You claim that the AIR is blue, but it’s entirely clear through nearly all of the air, don’t bs me that we’ve seen any blue below us in a plane, it’s entirely clear, countless images from planes PROVE it is clear, so stop being an idiot who thinks he can change the reality by holding up a few images of a mountain and claiming this proves it is blue below us in planes. I won’t deal with you if you are that delusiional. Common sense I means nothing to you, and I won’t waste any more time trying to explain to you that we see it is entirely clear below us to the surface of Earth.

I can’t deal with nutcases or fools who believe in fairy tales and say they see it is blue below us in a plane, or whatever bs excuse they come up with out of their asses

Yes [yawn]

Yes, and now Katy Perry is a liar along with all the NASA astronauts.

She just went to space and experienced zero gravity before returning back to Earth. No exploding against a firmament like you believe.

I'm sure Katy would agree the Earth looks more blue when looking down at it from outer space. Why don't you ask her?

Tell us more about your firmament dome that you believe so strongly in, despite all the mountains of evidence to the contrary that it exists.

Quote from: Aera23 on April 14, 2025, 01:51:41 AM

Quote from: Celest Eal on March 24, 2025, 04:54:00 PM

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

Going to space or even watching space videos online won't change my mind about my faith. For me, the firmament might as well be the observable universe.

This is an interesting comment, and is common among deeply religious people: They reject the evidence of their own eyes and their own reason if it conflicts with their faith. Faith, of course, generally comes from being told stuff by people you trust at a very young and impressionable age, or from reading something you trust. You believe the Bible is the Word of God because someone (perhaps your parents, perhaps a pastor) told you it was. Most English speakers read the Bible (if at all) in a translation, and since there are no extant copies of the originals of any of the books, they're reading a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy. And they have many translations to choose from. And the translators had different source copies to translate from. And then you have to interpret what is said because there's always some ambiguity in language.

But if your faith is strong, you will give more weight to your interpretation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of scripture than to your own eyes or the word of a close personal friend or family member. You'd rather believe that a person you know and respect would lie to you, than accept, for example, that they'd been to space or to Antarctica.

Its hard to say which translations are more accurate, I admit I don't read the Bible very often (though listen weekly to it at mass); it contains a mix of history, parables, prayers, and more.

If they presented photos from those locations, and described their travels, then I'd believe them.
I'd probably believe a close family member or friend if they merely recalled a few stories from there, however I doubt anyone I know would go to those locations due to the cost. I wouldn't mind a short space trip if it becomes affordable... will need a lot of coats for Antarctica, unless I don't leave the helicopter flight (then only a light jumper may be needed on the flight)

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 14, 2025, 10:49:48 AM

Quote from: Aera23 on April 14, 2025, 01:51:41 AM

Quote from: Celest Eal on March 24, 2025, 04:54:00 PM

A question for those of Religious Faith: Chances are "YOU" won't go to space. If however your children or grandchildren do, and bring back to earth "really" cool photographs, will this change your mind regarding the "Firmament"? And if so what about your faith in "God"?

Going to space or even watching space videos online won't change my mind about my faith. For me, the firmament might as well be the observable universe.

This is an interesting comment, and is common among deeply religious people: They reject the evidence of their own eyes and their own reason if it conflicts with their faith. Faith, of course, generally comes from being told stuff by people you trust at a very young and impressionable age, or from reading something you trust. You believe the Bible is the Word of God because someone (perhaps your parents, perhaps a pastor) told you it was. Most English speakers read the Bible (if at all) in a translation, and since there are no extant copies of the originals of any of the books, they're reading a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy. And they have many translations to choose from. And the translators had different source copies to translate from. And then you have to interpret what is said because there's always some ambiguity in language.

But if your faith is strong, you will give more weight to your interpretation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of scripture than to your own eyes or the word of a close personal friend or family member. You'd rather believe that a person you know and respect would lie to you, than accept, for example, that they'd been to space or to Antarctica.

Its hard to say which translations are more accurate, I admit I don't read the Bible very often (though listen weekly to it at mass); it contains a mix of history, parables, prayers, and more.

If they presented photos from those locations, and described their travels, then I'd believe them.
I'd probably believe a close family member or friend if they merely recalled a few stories from there, however I doubt anyone I know would go to those locations due to the cost. I wouldn't mind a short space trip if it becomes affordable... will need a lot of coats for Antarctica, unless I don't leave the helicopter flight (then only a light jumper may be needed on the flight)

I'll bet the outfits that take people to Antarctica, whether as tourists, or for research, provide suitable clothing. When I went to Churchill, MB, to see the polar bears they (the people, not the bears) provided us with parkas and boots, because you wouldn't expect tourists to buy parkas for that one trip. I'm sure it's the same for Antarctica. It is expensive, but they'll provide you with adequate outer wear.

I'll bet the outfits that take people to Antarctica, whether as tourists, or for research, provide suitable clothing. When I went to Churchill, MB, to see the polar bears they (the people, not the bears) provided us with parkas and boots, because you wouldn't expect tourists to buy parkas for that one trip. I'm sure it's the same for Antarctica. It is expensive, but they'll provide you with adequate outer wear.

In this case it varies depending on provider.
If a place is cheap and easy to access, then in order to encourage people to come they will rent out the gear.
If it is much harder and more expensive to access, the people doing it will typically have a lot of money already and likely wont want borrowed gear.
Some will include it in the cost of the ticket.
e.g. here:
https://www.antarcticatravelcentre.com.au/faq/
"a complimentary polar expedition jacket to wear during your expedition and take home after your trip."

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 13, 2025, 07:37:40 AM

Fundamentalists are bigots who diligently search out any excuse to hate people who are in any way different from themselves.

Fundamentalists are those who stick to the fundamentals of the thing they are following.

The reason Christian fundamentalists are so bigoted, is because Christianity is bigoted.
For example, if Christianity didn't say homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death (or other things condemning homosexuality), then Christian fundamentalists wouldn't be saying that.
Some "Christians" deciding to ignore that does not remove the underlying bigotry of Christianity.

It doesn't; this stems from a lack of understanding on your (and maybe their if we are being generous) parts. That would be in the Old Testament. Its pretty clear in many places that that should be ignored. Hebrews 8:13 for example, Matthew 5:17, Romans 7:6 etc.

Again, fundamentalism is not the problem, what they are following the fundamentals of is.
So if you have a problem with Christian fundamentalism, the problem lies with Christianity, not fundamentalism.

Of course fundamentalists will ignore what they want (in contrast to what the Bible actually says) for their views.

It doesn't; this stems from a lack of understanding on your (and maybe their if we are being generous) parts. That would be in the Old Testament. Its pretty clear in many places that that should be ignored. Hebrews 8:13 for example, Matthew 5:17, Romans 7:6 etc.

Of course fundamentalists will ignore what they want (in contrast to what the Bible actually says) for their views.

Is that really the case, or that is just YOUR misunderstanding/lack of understanding.

It comes down to a quite simple fact, the old testament and the commandments therein are meant to be the commandments of a loving god.
The only way to rationalise rejecting those commandments and instead following the new testament is if you discard the idea of a loving god and instead accept God as an evil tyrant that must be obeyed or you will face eternal torment.

Yes, a "new covenant" is established, but does that mean that everything God has declared to be bad is no longer bad? That all the commandments of God should no longer be followed? Or is it more focusing on Jesus being the path to forgiveness instead of sacrificing animals?
Matthew 5:17 makes it clear that he has not come to destroy the law. And that not one iota shall be removed.
In fact, shortly thereafter we have 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
So the "Christians" who advocate for setting aside the commands of God are the "least in the kingdom of heaven"

And we have the story at the start of John 8. While Jesus is opposing people carrying out punishments on the person, he doesn't say that what she was not wrong, instead she tells her to leave and sin no more.

And if you really want to try using these as excuses to discard all the commands, then what should they be doing? Thinking everything is fine?

If people are not following the fundamentals of something, they cannot be fundamentalists.

The God of the Old Testament was not a "loving" God. He was a jealous, capricious, and vindictive God. The Old Testament tells us to fear God, because He will squash you like a bug if he feels like it. Read Job. That's why the Marcionites believed that there were TWO gods: The God of the OT who made the material world and demanded sacrifice, and the God of the New Testament, who was loving and therefore sent his Son to pretend to be crucified, to trick the old God into releasing Mankind from Original Sin. (The Marcionites believed that Jesus didn't really die; only an illusion seemed to suffer on the Cross. And they had a long list of fundamental differences between the Old God and the New one, proving that they could not be the same God.)

As for expedition jackets, Natural Habitat Adventures provided us with parkas and boots for Churchill, MB, and we had to return them at the end of the trip. (Five stars out of five for NatHab: wonderfully run tour! Polar bears are so cool.)

Quote from: Username on April 16, 2025, 10:28:27 AM

It doesn't; this stems from a lack of understanding on your (and maybe their if we are being generous) parts. That would be in the Old Testament. Its pretty clear in many places that that should be ignored. Hebrews 8:13 for example, Matthew 5:17, Romans 7:6 etc.

Of course fundamentalists will ignore what they want (in contrast to what the Bible actually says) for their views.

Is that really the case, or that is just YOUR misunderstanding/lack of understanding.

It comes down to a quite simple fact, the old testament and the commandments therein are meant to be the commandments of a loving god.
The only way to rationalise rejecting those commandments and instead following the new testament is if you discard the idea of a loving god and instead accept God as an evil tyrant that must be obeyed or you will face eternal torment.

Yes, a "new covenant" is established, but does that mean that everything God has declared to be bad is no longer bad? That all the commandments of God should no longer be followed? Or is it more focusing on Jesus being the path to forgiveness instead of sacrificing animals?
Matthew 5:17 makes it clear that he has not come to destroy the law. And that not one iota shall be removed.
In fact, shortly thereafter we have 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
So the "Christians" who advocate for setting aside the commands of God are the "least in the kingdom of heaven"

And we have the story at the start of John 8. While Jesus is opposing people carrying out punishments on the person, he doesn't say that what she was not wrong, instead she tells her to leave and sin no more.

And if you really want to try using these as excuses to discard all the commands, then what should they be doing? Thinking everything is fine?

If people are not following the fundamentals of something, they cannot be fundamentalists.

No - he didn't destroy it. He is there to fulfill it. It is completed. He is the result of it, and accomplished its goals.

Its not me trying to use these excuses to "discard" the old testament. Its a well established doctrine in Christianity. Ever heard of the New Covenant? You are right; one of the foundational differences between Judaism and Christianity is just me making excuses.

Where do you get off Jack? Like I said, a child's understanding of Christianity. You couldn't argue against it properly if you wanted to.

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”

“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

“You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Not religious, but also not ignorant of what I'm talking of. If you want to argue against a topic learn it. You've been here long enough to learn about the flat earth and all you've accomplished is fisking.

You've also been on earth (edit - nay the west even) long enough to know about one of its largest world views. I often say read a book. Its literally almost everywhere. Just pick the fucker up.

Just a note since it came to mind I didn't make it clear and it crossed my mind today; fundamentalist Christians (in large) accept the theory of the New Covenant. In practice though, they act like fundamentalists and ignore that and still cherry pick the old testament to fit their want in spite of it contradicting almost everything in the New Covenant.

No - he didn't destroy it. He is there to fulfill it. It is completed. He is the result of it, and accomplished its goals.

And just what is meant by "fulfill"?
Does that mean render all the old laws, allegedly perfect commandments from a perfect being, suddenly no longer valid?
That homosexuality was only an abomination worthy of death then and no longer is now?
What changed to make that the case?
Or did God just screw up with the old one and need to fix it?

Or is the appropriate interpretation that it is still bad, but you no longer need to punish people at all for anything, and Jesus can save people who repent?

Its not me trying to use these excuses to "discard" the old testament.

Yes, I know that loads of "Christians" use excuses to discard parts of the Bible they don't like, and ignore the logical implications of it.
The child like view is picking and choosing which parts you want to follow, yet still pretending to follow it.

Not religious, but also not ignorant of what I'm talking of.

Yet you seem to wilfully ignore parts I pointed out.
I am not ignorant of what I'm talking about.

I used to be a Christian, and then I looked into it more, and rejected it for the pile of garbage it is.

You've been here long enough to learn about the flat earth

And I have repeatedly demonstrated faults with it that FEers are unable to address.

I often say read a book. Its literally almost everywhere. Just pick the fucker up.

Try telling that to the "Christians". They are the ones typically not reading it.

 In practice though, they act like fundamentalists and ignore that and still cherry pick the old testament to fit their want in spite of it contradicting almost everything in the New Covenant.

Are they save by faith or by the law of Moses?

Galatians 2:19–21 (KJV 1900)

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

You have been provided footage of several examples, all of which you dismiss as fake because you can't accept reality.
Is there anything at all in the footage to indicate it is fake? No.
Do you have any reason to suggest it is fake? No, with the sole exception of it not matching your delusional fantasy

No, the rockets are real, and are really below the blue waters of the Firmament.

At no point are they ever going up through the blue ‘skies’ at all.

They are clearly in air, which is also entirely clear as well.

The blue is high above them the whole time.

They’re supposed to be above all the blue skies, in ‘space’.

We see the blue high above them, so where would ‘space’ be seen?  There is no blue lower than them, it’s all high above them.

All the blue should be below them, but it’s not there at all.

What IS faked is their ‘black space’ shots supposedly taken from the rockets!

Why would it be black across from the rockets but blue above them? That’s why they only fake ‘black space’ across from the rocket. Why don’t they show what it looks like above them, it should be black also!

It’s utterly ridiculous.

Look at how they show part of a ball Earth below them, and then pan across from ball Earth and then show black space!

What if they panned upward from the rocket, and show the blue above them, which we can see??

You can’t have it both ways, black space across from them, while blue above them.

What a joke.