Another look at the moon landing.

[prodromos]

Utter Rubbish, watch the video. The abuse Bart got from the astronauts was terrible.

When you falsely accuse people to their face of being lying deceivers, then you should probably expect to be treated with disdain. Bart deserved a lot worse.

 

[Apple Sky]

When you falsely accuse people to their face of being lying deceivers, then you should probably expect to be treated with disdain. Bart deserved a lot worse.

He didn't deserve to get chased by the CIA threatening his life.

 

[Apple Sky]

He didn't have to.
I was referring to your post where you quoted someone as saying that telling NASA you were a Christians was "part and parcel" of the experience. That suggested that astronauts said they were Christians whether they were or not

You should maybe word your posts a bit better.

 

[Strong in Him]

You should maybe word your posts a bit better.

You can talk!

 

[prodromos]

He didn't deserve to get chased by the CIA threatening his life.

Evidence of this is lacking

 

[Apple Sky]

Evidence of this is lacking

Well Bart is a Christian, you should read his book.

 

[prodromos]

Well Bart is a Christian, you should read his book.

According to you, the testimony of a Christian is untrustworthy.

 

[Apple Sky]

According to you, the testimony of a Christian is untrustworthy.

Well according to @Strong in Him it's not.

 

[prodromos]

Well according to @Strong in Him it's not.

The biblical approach is to require two or three witnesses. In the case of the Astronauts and the lunar missions we have way more than two or three witnesses so we canbe sure that their testimony is true. All we have from Bart Sibrel is his own testimony.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well according to @Strong in Him it's not.

The testimony of a Christian is not untrustworthy??
That means it is trustworthy.

It was you who said that Charles Duke's testimony isn't trustworthy - even though he talks to many about Jesus.
But talking about whether or not Bart pushed someone; "you should read his book because he is a Christian."

 

[Strong in Him]

Well Bart is a Christian, you should read his book.

This is one of the few times that I've ever checked out your claims.
1) There is nothing on Bart's own website about him being a Christian; where did you get that from?
2) One of the reasons that Bart doesn't believe the moon landings happened is because of the Van Allan belts - those things that you say don't exist, remember?

So you have a dilemma; either affirm what Bart teaches including the Van Allan belts which you say aren't there, or believe the word and testimonies of Christians who were there and did this thing which he claims is impossible.

 

[The Liturgist]

Evidence of this is lacking

To put it mildly.

 

[Apple Sky]

But talking about whether or not Bart pushed someone; "you should read his book because he is a Christian."

It's on order.

So you have a dilemma; either affirm what Bart teaches including the Van Allan belts which you say aren't there, or believe the word and testimonies of Christians who were there and did this thing which he claims is impossible.

I know that Bart was an ardent believer that they went to to moon util his skepticism grew after encountering dissenting accounts and technical evidence. He contends that multiple anomalies, such as peculiar shadow angles and the limitations of 1960s technology, suggest the lunar landings were fabricated studio productions rather than actual missions.

So why should he not believe that the belts are there ? He has no reason to believe other wise ???
This doesn't make his testimonies any less true.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's on order.

What's on order; his book?
What's you ordering his book got to do with my question?

I know that Bart was an ardent believer that they went to to moon util his skepticism grew after encountering dissenting accounts and technical evidence. He contends that multiple anomalies, such as peculiar shadow angles and the limitations of 1960s technology, suggest the lunar landings were fabricated studio productions rather than actual missions.

Yes.
But he was a film maker, not an astronaut. How would he know what lighting, and camera angles, were like on the moon when he'd never been there?

So why should he not believe that the belts are there ? He has no reason to believe other wise ???

If one of the reasons he gave for his belief that people didn't go to the moon was the Van Allan belts, presumably he'd done some research into the subject. I gather his objection was something to do with amounts of radiation they gave out, (I may have got that wrong.)
If someone had said to him, "the belts aren't there and therefore there is no radiation", his objection would have been removed. Describing the danger of the belts when he had been told they were not there would make him look daft/a liar and not a credible witness.

This doesn't make his testimonies any less true.

It considerably dents it.

On the other hand, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Charles Duke and 9 others walked on the moon. They got out of an aircraft, their feet touched the surface and they walked.

You are prepared to believe the testimony of someone who was not a scientist, may not have been a Christian, wasn't an astronaut and one of whose statements contradicts your beliefs. Yet you, a Christian woman, won't believe the testimony of a Christian astronaut (Aldrin) and another astronaut who later became a Christian (Duke.) Even though they were there and know perfectly well whether or not they got into a rocket, spent days in space and walked on the moon. Their experience contradicts your belief, so you reject their eyewitness accounts rather than say "I was wrong", (though you once did.)

 

[Apple Sky]

Yet you, a Christian woman, won't believe the testimony of a Christian astronaut (Aldrin) and another astronaut who later became a Christian (Duke.)

I don't believe any astronaut has been or walked on the moon & as for Buzz Aldrin being a Christian, don't make me laugh, the only thing Buzz believes in is his Freemasonic buddies.

Yes, Buzz Aldrin was indeed a Freemason. He was initiated into Oak Park Lodge No. 864 in Alabama in 1955 and raised at Lawrence N. Greenleaf Lodge, No. 169 in Colorado in 1956. He was also a member of York Rite and Arabia Shrine Temple of Houston.

What is the purpose of the York Rite?

The Rite's name is derived from the city of York, where, according to one Masonic legend, the first meetings of Masons in England took place. The York Rite is also one of the concordant bodies of Freemasonry that a Master Mason may join to further his knowledge of Freemasonry.

 

[trophy33]

I don't believe any astronaut has been or walked on the moon & as for Buzz Aldrin being a Christian, don't make me laugh, the only thing Buzz believes in is his Freemasonic buddies.

View attachment 365465

Yes, Buzz Aldrin was indeed a Freemason. He was initiated into Oak Park Lodge No. 864 in Alabama in 1955 and raised at Lawrence N. Greenleaf Lodge, No. 169 in Colorado in 1956. He was also a member of York Rite and Arabia Shrine Temple of Houston.

What is the purpose of the York Rite?

The Rite's name is derived from the city of York, where, according to one Masonic legend, the first meetings of Masons in England took place. The York Rite is also one of the concordant bodies of Freemasonry that a Master Mason may join to further his knowledge of Freemasonry.

Freemasons can be Christians. Actually, freemasons can be of various religions.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't believe any astronaut has been or walked on the moon & as for Buzz Aldrin being a Christian, don't make me laugh,

Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon - a ceremony instigated by Jesus who said "do this in memory of me", and which celebrates the body and blood of Christ. Whether or not he actually was a Christian, is not for any of us to judge.
Charles Duke was an astronaut who later became a Christian and who talks about his walk on the moon, and about Jesus.

There is something in you which would rather believe Freemasons, non Christians and occult leaders who say the moon landings were fake, than the testimonies and eye witness accounts of fellow Christians - God's children and Spirit-filled believers - who were there.
What is that? Because it sure as heck isn't from God.

And that doesn't mean I don't believe you are a Christian.

 

[Apple Sky]

Freemasons can be Christians. Actually, freemasons can be of various religions.

I wouldn't want to be associated with any Freemason.

Freemasonry is an Anti-Christ Religion - Explained by Brother Michael Dimond​

https://rumble.com/v44t07h-freemasonry-is-an-anti-christ-religion-explained-by-brother-michael-dimond.html

 

[trophy33]

I wouldn't want to be associated with any Freemason.

Freemasonry is an Anti-Christ Religion - Explained by Brother Michael Dimond​

https://rumble.com/v44t07h-freemasonry-is-an-anti-christ-religion-explained-by-brother-michael-dimond.html

Freemasonry is not a religion. There are a lot of conspiracy theories and nonsense about them out there.

It is best to stick to some normal sources:

Freemasonry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Strong in Him]

I wouldn't want to be associated with any Freemason.

Yet in another thread/post you quoted from, and praised, the Freemasons for believing in a flat earth.
All this, while criticising your fellow Christians.