B flat B♭

[Phil G]

And how does one know what Martin Luther believed ?

View attachment 373241

Well you tell me. You’re the one who brought Luther in on this. So you bear the responsibility for proving he believed the earth to be flat. Can you find one teaching of Luther where he says the earth is flat and not a globe?

Remember Copernicus said the earth is a globe. So why didn’t Luther contradict that?

AI overview:

“No, Martin Luther did not believe the Earth was flat; he, like most educated people of his time, knew the Earth was a sphere, and he was aware of the long-standing scientific and philosophical evidence for its roundness. However, Luther was strongly against Nicolaus Copernicus's heliocentric model, which placed the Sun at the center of the solar system instead of the Earth. He rejected Copernicus's ideas based on his interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Book of Joshua, and believed the geocentric model (Earth-centered) was the correct one, but this was a theological and philosophical stance, not a belief in a flat Earth.”

You’re jumping from one claim to another, as usual. And when you can’t answer, you’ll jump to yet another claim.

Try sticking with one claim and digesting the fact that your claim doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

 

[Apple Sky]

Well you tell me. You’re the one who brought Luther in on this. So you bear the responsibility for proving he believed the earth to be flat. Can you find one teaching of Luther where he says the earth is flat and not a globe?

Never claimed that Martin Luther said the earth was flat, what I said was that ML knew the earth to be stationary & didn't move.
At least get yer facts right.

“No, Martin Luther did not believe the Earth was flat; he, like most educated people of his time, knew the Earth was a sphere, and he was aware of the long-standing scientific and philosophical evidence for its roundness. However, Luther was strongly against Nicolaus Copernicus's heliocentric model, which placed the Sun at the center of the solar system instead of the Earth. He rejected Copernicus's ideas based on his interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Book of Joshua, and believed the geocentric model (Earth-centered) was the correct one, but this was a theological and philosophical stance, not a belief in a flat Earth.”

I only asked, 'And how does one know what Martin Luther believed' ? Stop getting so touchy.

 

[Phil G]

Never claimed that Martin Luther said the earth was flat, what I said was that ML knew the earth to be stationary & didn't move.
At least get yer facts right.



I only asked, 'And how does one know what Martin Luther believed' ? Stop getting so touchy.

I’m not being touchy. You are. I just said he was wrong that the earth was geocentric and that he was right that the earth wasn’t flat.

Your response was to challenge me about how we know what he believed and posted a page confirming he believed the earth to be geocentric, which I never questioned.

Now you’re getting all defensive about it.

 

[Apple Sky]

I’m not being touchy. You are

I'm not the one who's saying ' Well you tell me.' as if it's an order.

You’re jumping from one claim to another, as usual. And when you can’t answer, you’ll jump to yet another claim.

& do try giving me a chance 2 answer .

 

[Phil G]

I'm not the one who's saying ' Well you tell me.' as if it's an order.



& do try giving me a chance 2 answer .

It wasn’t an order, it was a suggestion seeing as you’re the one who brought Luther into it. Look who’s touchy now…

And you’ve been given plenty of chances to answer for your claims. You just change the subject when you can’t answer…as usual.

 

[Apple Sky]

It wasn’t an order, it was a suggestion seeing as you’re the one who brought Luther into it. Look who’s touchy now…

And you’ve been given plenty of chances to answer for your claims. You just change the subject when you can’t answer…as usual.

Why are being so horrible ?

 

[Phil G]

Why are being so horrible ?

I’m not being horrible. You’ve been horrible to me, but I’m giving you the opportunity to give evidence for your claims, which you obviously don’t like having to do.

And it’s time your attitude changed like @prodromos has alluded to.

 

[Apple Sky]

And it’s time your attitude changed like @prodromos has alluded to.

I agree if yours does.

 

[Phil G]

I agree if yours does.

My attitude is always to hold you to account on your claims. Your attitude has been to avoid having to explain your claims, to the point of being mocking.

You even agreed to be more friendly at one point, in answer to somebody else who noted your poor attitude, only to return to your usual mockery soon after.

 

[Apple Sky]

You even agreed to be more friendly at one point, in answer to somebody else who noted your poor attitude, only to return to your usual mockery soon after.

I tried but all's I got was provocation.

 

[Phil G]

I tried but all's I got was provocation.

No, what you got was people looking for you to explain your claims in such a way that they fit reality, instead of contradicting reality. That's not provocation.

 

[Apple Sky]

No, what you got was people looking for you to explain your claims in such a way that they fit reality, instead of contradicting reality.

I do contradict, I'm bound too when your belief is opposite too mine which is the truth.

 

[Phil G]

I do contradict, I'm bound too when your belief is opposite too mine which is the truth.

This is an example of your obstinacy. You just keep stating your beliefs without explaining how they fit with reality. It's not about your belief or my belief. It's about reality. Your claims contradict the reality we see with our own eyes, they contradict basic physics, they contradict the reality as testified to by Christian astronauts. And that's just for starters.

I, and others, have been looking for you to explain your beliefs in the context of reality. You have repeatedly refused to do that. Instead you just keep posting your claims devoid of explanation and then post videos which just do the same.

If it doesn't fit reality, then it's not true. And your claims do not fit reality.

 

[Strong in Him]

I do contradict, I'm bound too when your belief is opposite too mine which is the truth.

You don't just contradict.
Anyone can say, "I disagree. X said ....... and Y backed him up." You say that men who actually walked on the moon are lying - i.e they know perfectly well that they didn't do anything of the sort but are making a false statement in order to deceive. You say that photos have been deliberately faked - by CGI which they didn't have. You have said that anyone who accepts a globe earth doesn't believe Genesis 1. You have, in the past, implied that globe earthers are being deceived and may one day regret it.

You have also contradicted yourself; showing YouTube clips which don't say what you claim they say. You once said that the four corners of the earth were "further out" - whatever that meant; now you say they are allegorical.
You once believed the moon landings and Charles Duke's testimony; you are now saying that both are false and that you had a moment of weakness or "what was I thinking?" That means you've had to say "sorry" to God for saying "sorry" to God.

 

[Apple Sky]

If it doesn't fit reality, then it's not true. And your claims do not fit reality.

What reality is to one person may not be reality to another.

 

[Phil G]

What is reality to one person may not be reality to another.

That's a ridiculous statement. Reality is objective. It's not dependent on opinion.

For example, your claim that the sun doesn't set but only appears to either fits with what we see in reality or it doesn't.

Anybody who has observed a sunset can see that it's not just appearing to set, it is actually being hidden by the horizon. A half set sun is not any smaller in size than a full sun. It's only the bottom half that is hidden by the horizon at that stage. And no amount of zoom lenses will bring the bottom half into view again.

Again, reality is objective. It doesn't care about your opinion. If it's reality for one, then it's reality for all.

 

[Apple Sky]

You don't just contradict.
Anyone can say, "I disagree. X said ....... and Y backed him up." You say that men who actually walked on the moon are lying - i.e they know perfectly well that they didn't do anything of the sort but are making a false statement in order to deceive. You say that photos have been deliberately faked - by CGI which they didn't have. You have said that anyone who accepts a globe earth doesn't believe Genesis 1. You have, in the past, implied that globe earthers are being deceived and may one day regret it.

You have also contradicted yourself; showing YouTube clips which don't say what you claim they say. You once said that the four corners of the earth were "further out" - whatever that meant; now you say they are allegorical.
You once believed the moon landings and Charles Duke's testimony; you are now saying that both are false and that you had a moment of weakness or "what was I thinking?" That means you've had to say "sorry" to God for saying "sorry" to God.

Prove me wrong then & not with hearsay's.

 

[Phil G]

Prove me wrong then & not with hearsay's.

Everyone here has provided you with plenty of evidence for a globe earth. You just keep dismissing it out of hand. An irrational refusal to accept or listen to it.

And it's obvious you don't understand the meaning of hearsay. Hearsay is when somebody says what they have heard from somebody else. That's why it's "hear" and "say". It is effectively rumour or gossip. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. It is direct testimony.

 

[Apple Sky]

Anybody who has observed a sunset can see that it's not just appearing to set, it is actually being hidden by the horizon. A half set sun is not any smaller in size than a full sun. It's only the bottom half that is hidden by the horizon at that stage. And no amount of zoom lenses will bring the bottom half into view again.

Prove it with math's.

If it's reality for one, then it's reality for all.

Why because reality aligns with several philosophical and psychological concepts ?

 

[Phil G]

Prove it with math's.

But maths is gobbledygook to you. No, prove it by observation. Go out with the most powerful camera you can get and watch the sunset over the sea. Then try to use the camera to zoom it back into view again after it has set.

Better still, do it for the moon because you won't risk blinding yourself then.

Why because reality aligns with several philosophical and psychological concepts ?

That's a ridiculous statement. If something drops on your head, is that aligning with several philosophical and psychological concepts?