1 edit
-Removed-Are you going to put up the original post here or are you going to do something else ?
If you have the original discussion where I wrote something about future created creatures and hanging in chains and so forth, paste that post here now.
Post it rather than argue about what I "really want to deny".
What I have a problem with is your extrapolations for added effects against something I wrote that you didn't like.
Did I insist in a doctrine of future creatures on other planets ?
That's what you seem to ridicule in connection with the witnessing of confined and punished rebels against God.
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipC'mon jaywill."There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers," he said in 1994. "There are places to go beyond belief."
I heard that too. It sounds so far like what you heard I also heard.
I don't yet see you informing me of any larger context.
The possibility still exists th ...[text shortened]... ou would have thought he'd be speaking of it in public again and again for the rest of his life.
He's clearly speaking of as-of-yet undiscovered "great ideas" and possible future "breakthroughs". He's clearly NOT speaking of the past.
In that context, it's also clear that "truth's protective layers" is a metaphor. It's not unlike Jesus using the metaphor of "light" and "darkness" when speaking of apparent and hidden truths. If Armstrong instead spoke of "those who can shine light on one of truth's shadows", would you struggle so much?
The possibility still exists that embedded in these generally visionary words about future accomplishments, there also lies a subtle admission that the truth has of yet to be protected.
So far the clarifying "surrounding context" you present doesn't do that much to nullify the possible meaning of the phrase "truth's protective layers". All you've really done is show me how you prefer to interpret the strange phrase.
There can still be places to go beyond belief and breakthroughs to be had while for now a protective layer be necessary to keep the truth from being known.
In the military and national security these "protective layers" are not infinite. They often have a limited amount of time in which the "classified" facts must remain secretive. These limits expire.
My guess is that if the videos were a stage production, at some point this "classified" truth will become unclassified. Some generation will see the protection removed. And it is possible that Neil Armstrong was saying that in guarded language.
Here you sound not unlike the nutjob I quoted earlier.
As with scripture, you believe the most innocuous phrases are some sort of "sign" with "hidden meaning". It seems to have affected your ability to "see" what is actually there.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipSure, if I was actually logged in to the site. 🙄
I would have thought that a ready reply would have been easy for this question.
Some of us are curious what the aging NASA astronaut was getting at. Remove one of truth's protective layers ?
The truth has "protective layers" that need removal by generations following that of the Apollo astronauts?[/b]
(And 'by some of us' i'm assuming you're referring to conspiracy youtubers and not rational human beings?)
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkObjection to what? sonship hasn't answered my question yet. I am interested in his definition of "glorify" [and therefore "glory"] if it somehow encompasses people being kept supernaturally 'alive' for eternity and tortured for being non-believers. The claim that it glorifies his god figure is sonship's; it is not my claim.
Assuming God did exist, and it did glorify him, what would be the grounds of your objection to this?
3 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI think as much as you may not like to, you're going to have to realize that some sober minded and knowledgeable people have doubts about Apollo moon walks.
Sure, if I was actually logged in to the site. 🙄
(And 'by some of us' i'm assuming you're referring to conspiracy youtubers and not rational human beings?)
Any kind of blanket attitude of - "All the level headed people are on my side" is bound to fail on unrealism.
I think also you may have to jettison any suspicion that only fanatic conspiracy buffs have doubts about the moon walks.
It may have some "feel-good" benefit to assume no one with their head on straight would doubt the moon walks and moon buggies videos. It may have some "feel-good" benefit to dismiss them all as conspiracy buffs just seeking maximum hits on Youtube sites.
I would consider that generalization something of a cope out in dealing with substantial issues.
Originally posted by sonshipPlease don't speak to me any more on this issue. I find you silliness genuinely depressing.
I think as much as you may not like to, you're going to have to realize that some sober minded and knowledgeable people have doubts about Apollo moon walks.
Any kind of blanket attitude of - "All the level headed people are on my side" is bound to fail on unrealism.
I think also you may have to jettison any suspicion that only fanatic conspiracy bu ...[text shortened]... I would consider that generalization something of a cope out in dealing with substantial issues.
Originally posted by sonshipYou should talk about clear thinking. It doesn't matter what evidence is provided, you still deny men walked on the moon, since that would put mankind in the position of doing things you think should only be the province of a deity. And all that from a 100% man made scam of a religion.
That does become a clouding issue, when one's emotions are kind of overshadowing more clear thinking.
Its not the most important thing in life.