Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


"The Principle" Movie: New Scientific Proof of Geocentrism!

Discuss movies, films, TV shows, music, celebrities and entertainment.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Winston » May 29th, 2016, 10:58 am

Yohan wrote:
Winston wrote:Yohan,
.....
Am i the only truth seeker here? You are supposed to analyze the evidence on both sides without bias. And take into account all the data. A freethinker does not take the establishment view on faith without critical thinking.

.....

There is plenty of evidence of design or a creator/creators. There is no evidence of evolution or that everything is due to randomness and chance.
Evolution does not mean everything is going on by chance or random.

If you want to analyze evidence about evolution you need some knowledge and do some research about it.

If you believe in a creator, you need not to use your brain, you just believe what is in the Bible written or somewhere else in other so-called Holy Books without questioning them which are claiming Jesus was born 200 years ago or visiting later on Utah in USA to support self-appointed prophets.

Very much which was said it could be done only by a 'god' was dismantled as untrue by researchers, who were often threatened by Christians, who know their faith is merely a product of fantasy.

About evidence of evolution there are some few places for reliable research.

What you cannot understand you have to measure, if you cannot measure it you have to do something about how to make it measurable - this is of course much more complicated than just to lie down and claim, it's all done by a 'creator'.

I know best about

http://www.kek.jp/en/index.html

Here you can seriously study about evolution of the universe.
But evolution definitely stays that life started by chance, which is impossible. So why do you believe it? That's illogical. Their claim is that lightning hit a pool of mud and formed the first bacterial life on Earth. That's impossible and all attempts to replicate it have failed. Lightning hitting is definitely an act of chance. So why do you deny it?

If I see a watch or computer and I conclude that it had a designer or designers, that doesn't mean I'm lazy to figure out how evolution could have formed the computer by chance or natural selection over millions of years. I would just be stating the logical conclusion that's self-evident.

Evolutionists claim that the fact that bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics is "proof" of evolution. But all that proves is that they adapt. It doesn't prove that bacteria can develop into animals and people. It doesn't prove macroevolution.

The fact is, there are no transitional fossils between alleged species of evolution. There are no transitional fossils between primates/hominids and human beings for example, nor between reptiles and birds. And all alleged transitional fossils found were revealed to be either hoaxes or mistaken extinct species. The fact is, if macroevolution were true, then primates cannot become human in one day. It would take millions of years. And thus there would be lots and lots of transitional fossils. Yet there are NONE. Darwin even admitted himself in his book that if his theory were true, there would be transitional fossils found to support it, but there have been NONE, so by his own admission, his own theory is debunked. So you evolutionists are clinging to a debunked and outdated theory, which is foolish.

Furthermore, the discover of DNA in the early 1900's ruled out evolution, because DNA is so complicated, more complex and organized than a supercomputer even, that there is NO WAY that chance, evolution or natural selection could have evolved it. One of the discoverers of DNA, Francis Kricke, said that. So why do you evolutionists ignore it? Why do you cling to your atheistic religion against all reason and evidence?

I've explained all this before. Next time I will just copy and paste it.

Btw, it was dishonest of you to act like you saw this film when you didn't. It turns out that most angry reviewers of this film never even saw it. Go figure. The emotional outrage against it is irrational and knee-jerkish. lol

Btw, the makers of this film do not claim that Earth is flat. They believe in a globe Earth, but one that the universe, stars, planets and our sun revolves around.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Principle" Movie: New Proof of Geocentric Universe!

Post by Winston » May 29th, 2016, 12:37 pm

Dr. Robert Sungenis presentation on why Galileo was wrong and why Geocentricism is the more correct view of the universe.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx7bYEUIF4[/youtube]

There are hundred of more videos on YouTube about this subject. Most of them are supporting geocentrism rather than heliocentrism. Take a look at the search results below. I guess it's cool, hip and trendy these days to be anti-establishment. lol

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... eocentrism
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=geocentric
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... iocentrism
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... liocentric

To see more interviews with Dr. Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano, the producers of "The Principle" movie, where they explain a lot more about the basis behind Geocentrism and answer all your questions, see below:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... t+sungenis
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ick+delano
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

The_Adventurer
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1384
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 5:17 pm

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by The_Adventurer » May 29th, 2016, 12:54 pm

Yohan wrote: I was asking you if Jesus was a man or a woman, you don't even know this, as there is no proof at all that Jesus ever existed.
Technically, there's no proof that any ancient historical figure existed. There are only records, the number of records and corroborative records. From what I have read, the majority of mainstream scholars do believe there was a historical Jesus, a man on whom the biblical tales are based. The idea that he never existed at all is considered an extreme view.

Most people assume Beowulf and Achilles to be fictions whereas Jesus is real. There are only records. They may all be fictions. They may all be real. Clash of the Titans may be more true than the bible. We don't know. We only choose to believe.

I suppose how realistic a record is matters. If we see an ancient record that such and such travelled to Babylon and paid his taxes, do we debate whether this guy existed or if the story is true? The reality is it doesn't really matter much, and it is mundane, so we likely assume it to be true and forget about it. Now if such and such was attacked by a dragon on the road to Babylon it becomes mythology.
“b***y is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of b***y in another dimension." -- Joe Rogan

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: "The Principle" Movie: New Proof of Geocentric Universe!

Post by Adama » May 29th, 2016, 7:36 pm

Has anyone seen this movie yet?
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Winston » May 30th, 2016, 10:45 am

Ghost wrote:
Adama wrote:Yeah this is the one narrated by Captain Janeway. Afterwards, she wants to claim she had no idea what it was all about. Whoops.

I have been waiting way too dang long for this movie. I really want to see it, and I gave up on waiting already. Thanks for making me anticipate it again, Wu. These people are so slow it may never happen, and I don't think it will!
She may not have. Films like this usually have to rely on dishonesty to get famous or semi-famous people involved. It's like celebrity endorsement, except even more dishonest.
Not exactly. If you watch the filmmakers rebuttal to the false media attacks, you learn the following:

1) The participants in the film signed a release form authorizing use of their interviews in the film. The release form stated that the film was gonna be an alternative cosmology film challenging the Copernican Principle. The filmmakers showed their signatures on the form.

2) The participants in the film received paychecks for it, which they all cashed. The filmmakers have a record of it. Once you sign a release form and cash in the check, it is considered a mutual transaction and you have no case against it.

3) The participants were not deceived. They were told what the documentary was about. The questions they were asked during the interview made that obvious too. In fact, Kate Mulgrew (Captain Janeway from Star Trek Voyager), who narrated the documentary, received the ENTIRE SCRIPT of it in advance. So there's no way she could have not known what the film was about. NO WAY! There is no friggin way that the NARRATOR of a film can not know what it's about! NO WAY IN HELL! Her management firm also received it as well, so they were well aware of it too. So even though Kate Mulgrew claimed she didn't know what the film was about on her Facebook page, there's no way she can defend that since she read the whole script in advance! In fact, she even asked to be interviewed for the film, because she said on camera that she found these recent discoveries about Earth being at the center of the universe to be "very exciting". They have her on video saying that, while she spoke her own mind.

The fact that she reversed herself later and claimed she had no idea what it was about, indicates that she was attacked and rebuked by the media, so she caved into pressure and feigned innocence and ignorance. It was her only defense, albeit a dishonest one. It was either that, or she risked having her career ruined by this documentary. It's the most logical conclusion. But either way, she knew what the subject of the film was in advance and didn't have a problem with it at first. She only recanted after undergoing pressure from above.

4) Lawrence Krauss, the famous astronomer who denied ever being interviewed for the film, must be a liar. The footage exists of him answering questions about Geocentrism, which the filmmakers have. Plus, Krauss cashed in the paycheck he received for being interviewed for the film. So how is it that Krauss doesn't remember being interviewed by the filmmakers, yet he remembers to CASH in the paycheck he received from them?! BUSTED! WHAT A FRIGGIN LIAR!

Use your common sense here. Obviously, what happened is that he didn't have a problem with the film at first, and was happy to express his disagreement with Geocentrism on camera. But later on, due to pressure from the establishment science community - which demands that all science point toward Atheism - he had to disavow his participation and so he pretended to not remember being interviewed, which is a bald faced lie. How could he remember to cash in his paycheck from he filmmakers but not remember being interviewed?! Common sense says he lied to protect his reputation and career.

5) Finally, keep in mind that none of the participants in the film who disagreed with Geocentrism were made to look like they agreed with it. Those who disagreed with it, expressed their support of the Heliocentric model. So they were not misquoted to look like they supported it. They were simply allowed to present their view on it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's being honest. A good documentary should present opinions from both sides.

Consider all that Ghost.

Here is the filmmakers' rebuttal which explains all the above, and why the mass media lied about them. You believe that lying is wrong right? Apparently, all this negative publicity, which contained lies, worked in their favor, because they got millions of dollars worth of free publicity, from the 150 news articles that bashed them. As a result, millions now know about the film and its revelations.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eVUSDy_rO0[/youtube]
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Winston » May 30th, 2016, 11:08 am

Adama wrote:
Winston wrote:Yohan,
Um how can you say that without seeing the film? Geez. What do you mean so far? You act like youre in the middle of watching the film. Dont be dishonest in the name of atheism.

Am i the only truth seeker here? You are supposed to analyze the evidence on both sides without bias. And take into account all the data. A freethinker does not take the establishment view on faith without critical thinking.

You got things backward. There is plenty of evidence of design or a creator/creators. There is no evidence of evolution or that everything is due to randomness and chance.

Why do all mammals have two eyes, one nose and one mouth? Evolution doesnt explain that, among other things.
Most of the men here are dogs. They hate God because they don't want to be told how to live their lives.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. Lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend you.

The men here are dogs. The pearl is the truth. To rend means to tear apart. Telling the truth to dogs causes them to twist the truth, then they will turn against you and attempt to tear you to pieces. There is little hope for dogs. I do not feel sorry for them, but I do look forward to watching then bend their knees to the Lord on the Day of Judgment.
Adama,
Try to be more tactful here please. Don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "hating God". That is antagonistic and is a form of ad hominem attack. Why not just say, "They fear the consequences and repercussions of what it would mean if it were proven and accepted that God exists."

Furthermore, keep in mind that if this film is right, it only proves that the universe has a Creator, a Designer or Grand Architect. It would not prove Christianity to be true, or that the Christian God exists. That is another issue altogether. For example, if I build a house, that means that I am the builder of the house, not that I am God. Or if I design a video game, then I am a designer, it doesn't mean I am God. See what I mean? The existence of a creator or designer or builder doesn't necessarily prove that there is a God in the classic sense of the word.

Also, the fact that something was created, built or designed, intelligently, doesn't mean that there has to be only one creator, designers or builder. As we all know, it takes a team of workers to build a house. And it takes a team of game designers to design a video game. So just because there's a creator doesn't automatically mean there has to be only one, as Christian theology assumes.

You gotta keep all this in mind and look at the big picture.
Adama wrote: Has anyone seen this movie yet?
I haven't yet, but I plan to soon. It's available now for DVD purchase or online streaming at their website: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com

You can stream it online for a small fee. Why don't you do that and be the first here to see it? Then write up a review of it, both here and on their IMDB page:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2458876/
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Winston » May 30th, 2016, 11:41 am

The_Adventurer wrote:
Yohan wrote: I was asking you if Jesus was a man or a woman, you don't even know this, as there is no proof at all that Jesus ever existed.
Technically, there's no proof that any ancient historical figure existed. There are only records, the number of records and corroborative records. From what I have read, the majority of mainstream scholars do believe there was a historical Jesus, a man on whom the biblical tales are based. The idea that he never existed at all is considered an extreme view.

Most people assume Beowulf and Achilles to be fictions whereas Jesus is real. There are only records. They may all be fictions. They may all be real. Clash of the Titans may be more true than the bible. We don't know. We only choose to believe.

I suppose how realistic a record is matters. If we see an ancient record that such and such travelled to Babylon and paid his taxes, do we debate whether this guy existed or if the story is true? The reality is it doesn't really matter much, and it is mundane, so we likely assume it to be true and forget about it. Now if such and such was attacked by a dragon on the road to Babylon it becomes mythology.
But Terrence, you miss the point. The difference between the historicity of Jesus as opposed to say, Julius Caesar, is that there are plenty of official historical Roman documents attesting to the existence of Julius Caesar. In contrast, there are no historical references about Jesus until 50 years after he supposedly died on the cross. And these historical references are spurious and suspicious too. For example, the paragraph about Jesus in Josephus' writing is sudden and interrupts the flow of the text, so that it seems out of context. And it wasn't referenced until hundreds of years later. That indicates that the passage may have been a forgery or interpolation, added in by the Catholic Church many years later.

But of course, just because no historical documents existed about Jesus doesn't mean he didn't exist either. Most people that existed throughout history were not written about by historians, but that doesn't prove that they never existed. So you can't prove either way if Jesus existed just from lack of documentation alone.

Yes most mainstream historians and scholars do believe that Jesus existed, but that the historical Jesus was not like the one depicted in the Christian Gospels. I think they believe that Jesus existed, despite the lack of evidence and documentation, for the following reasons:

1) They don't want to appear too radical or extreme. And claiming that a central figure of history didn't exist, is indeed a radical claim.

2) Logic says that every religious movement or cult must have a founder or originator. So that's probably true in the case of Christianity too. Some may argue that Paul was the founder of Christianity, however, it is unlikely that Paul could have founded a new religion based on someone who never existed, especially right after Jesus supposedly existed and conducted his ministry for three years. It's more likely that Paul reshaped and reformed Christianity while spreading it around, making it available for the Gentiles too, not just the Jews. He popularized it for a more mainstream audience.

3) Hoaxes usually only last for a few days or a few weeks before they are exposed and come to an end. They are not usually long-lasting. They don't last for 2000 years and become a dominant world religion. So it's unlikely for Christianity to be a total fabrication. Especially since it has changed so many lives, often for the better. Hoaxes don't have the power to change lives or perform miracles, and neither does the power of belief or placebo effect alone, without something to back it up. Believing in a hoax is a form of self-delusion, and delusions do not usually change lives for the better, at least not in the millions for two millenia.

Therefore, despite the lack of historical documentation of Jesus' existence, the balance of probability rests on the side that he did exist. So I agree with mainstream scholars on this. But whether or not the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels are the same, is another matter and can't be proven one way or another.

However, it is obvious that the Gospel writers did have an agenda and bias, which is evident from their writings, and that was to convert new people to the Christian faith. Biased people usually cherry pick their info of course. But what's suspicious is that none of the authors of the Four Gospels ever revealed who they were so that the sources could be checked. That is very auspicious and virtually makes the authors anonymous. And anonymous sources do not carry much credibility, as we all know.

Now it is true that the Romans took Christianity and subverted it for their own political purposes, as Emperor Constantine did. But that doesn't mean that the Romans totally made up Christianity - as Joseph Atwill claims in his documentary "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" and Acharya S (DM Murdock) claims in her book "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold". It's more likely that the Romans took a pre-existing movement and subverted it and infiltrated it, much like how the powers that be do today with movements that go against them. The Romans also mixed in elements of Roman Pagan religions as well, to create Roman Catholicism.

This guy explains it well:

http://montalk.net/notes/on-the-historicity-of-jesus

"It’s a lot easier to hijack something than to fabricate it. Instead of inventing a totally non-existent character of Jesus Christ and selling that product to the masses, it makes more sense that the authorities would consolidate already existing paradigms into a single system. The purpose of such a system would be to portray these authorities as divinely sanctioned.

Assimilated paradigms included Mithraism, Greek Neo-Platonism, and Judaism. For instance, the solar/zodiacal elements in Christianity came from Mithraism and related pagan systems. But these are just auxiliary additions, not the core nucleus of Christianity. The nucleus is the original Christian system, which existed alongside the other elements prior to their combined assimilation into an organized religion."


Hope that makes sense and gives you the big picture view of things. For more reasons on why Jesus Christ probably existed, see Bart Erhman's book, "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and his interviews/lectures on YouTube:


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... art+erhman

Bart Erhman's latest new book also seems interesting:

Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Principle" Movie: New Proof of Earth Centered Unive

Post by Winston » May 30th, 2016, 2:50 pm

Apparently, there is an even newer film out now promoting Geocentricism, just like "The Principle" does, called "Journey to the Center of the Universe". This documentary is 4.5 hours long and is produced by one of the same executive producers of "The Principle", Dr. Robert Sungenis. Here is the trailer for it.

https://gwwdvd.com/

You can get the DVD, download it, or rent it online here:

https://screeningnow.com/public/product ... 17c37d3c37

Image

Video Description:

Your life will be turned upside down as we Journey to the Center of the Universe!

The scientific establishment is about to collapse like a house of cards! In this DVD, you hold the key to unlocking how this paradigm shift will occur. Journey to the Center of the Universe is a cinematically stunning, 4.5 hour scientific documentary that unveils the never-before-told story of cosmology from the time of the Ancient Greeks to the present day that will shake the very ground beneath your feet. In addition to amazing new discoveries that lead to shocking conclusions, you will realize that everything you were taught in science class is nothing more than philosophical assumptions. Here are five of the hundreds of quotes from famous scientists in the film:

Albert Einstein (1952)
“…Whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments…all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.”

Stephen Hawking (2010)
“One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.”

George Ellis (1995)
“I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.”

Julian Barbour (1989)
“…Three and a half centuries after Galileo…it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves.”

Lawerence Krauss (2006)
“…When you look at the CMB map, you also see that the structure is…correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

See the first 5 minute intro of the film here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbR06vDYPWg[/youtube]
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5749
Joined: April 17th, 2011, 2:23 am

Re: "The Principle" Movie: New Proof of Earth Centered Unive

Post by Ghost » May 30th, 2016, 9:32 pm

It sounds like some people were hard for cash, so they signed on for this bullshit, then later recanted it and feigned ignorance so as to not be ruined.

cdnFA
Junior Poster
Posts: 582
Joined: November 18th, 2015, 5:51 am

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by cdnFA » May 31st, 2016, 2:32 am

Winston wrote:
Adama,
Try to be more tactful here please. Don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "hating God". That is antagonistic and is a form of ad hominem attack. Why not just say, "They fear the consequences and repercussions of what it would mean if it were proven and accepted that God exists."
I wouldn't consider them to be ad hominem attacks. They are antagonistic in that they are wildly off base and provided with no actual evidence or reasoning.

It would be a bit like repeating that someone likes to have sex with trannie whores over and over. No links to a quote on the forum, not pictures, no going from something that has been said and following a chain of logic to the conclusion.

I don't think too many atheists fear the consequences and repercussions of what it would mean to be proven wrong and that god exists. The massive majority of us would probably conclude that if there was a divine creator god that said being would not be in the business of torturing folks for not seeing the evidence of his existence in the right way. One would figure that someone who created the universe would have enough self esteem to accept rejection, double plus so when said rejection is not personal but because of a lack of convincing evidence. It is pretty much inconceivable for someone who doesn't believe in the bible because the bible says it is true that the universe was created by someone with the mentality of a 3 year old combined with a abusive controlling spouts. It is also one of the big reasons from dismissing the bible.
Also many of us think if there was a god who is into punishment it would be more likely that people like Adama would be facing hellfire for not using their "god" givin talents.

But what I do know, I only have decades of being and interacting with non-believers.

That it is antagonistic it is so because telling lies about people is antagonistic, TBH I think his views says a lot more about him and his ilk then it does about us.

In real life there is this one girl who is always trying to convert me and pretty much everyone she encounters to the point where it bugs people. She says she must because hell is so bad she feels compelled to try and save people from it. I think next time I might steal a line from the feminazis and say "Deities should not torture".
Also why is it on her to prevent us from going to hell, it's her invisible friend who is so bloodthirsty, maybe she should reconsider her faith.

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Adama » June 1st, 2016, 12:52 am

Winston wrote:
Adama wrote:
Winston wrote:Yohan,
Um how can you say that without seeing the film? Geez. What do you mean so far? You act like youre in the middle of watching the film. Dont be dishonest in the name of atheism.

Am i the only truth seeker here? You are supposed to analyze the evidence on both sides without bias. And take into account all the data. A freethinker does not take the establishment view on faith without critical thinking.

You got things backward. There is plenty of evidence of design or a creator/creators. There is no evidence of evolution or that everything is due to randomness and chance.

Why do all mammals have two eyes, one nose and one mouth? Evolution doesnt explain that, among other things.
Most of the men here are dogs. They hate God because they don't want to be told how to live their lives.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. Lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend you.

The men here are dogs. The pearl is the truth. To rend means to tear apart. Telling the truth to dogs causes them to twist the truth, then they will turn against you and attempt to tear you to pieces. There is little hope for dogs. I do not feel sorry for them, but I do look forward to watching then bend their knees to the Lord on the Day of Judgment.
Adama,
Try to be more tactful here please. Don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "hating God". That is antagonistic and is a form of ad hominem attack. Why not just say, "They fear the consequences and repercussions of what it would mean if it were proven and accepted that God exists."

Furthermore, keep in mind that if this film is right, it only proves that the universe has a Creator, a Designer or Grand Architect. It would not prove Christianity to be true, or that the Christian God exists. That is another issue altogether. For example, if I build a house, that means that I am the builder of the house, not that I am God. Or if I design a video game, then I am a designer, it doesn't mean I am God. See what I mean? The existence of a creator or designer or builder doesn't necessarily prove that there is a God in the classic sense of the word.

Also, the fact that something was created, built or designed, intelligently, doesn't mean that there has to be only one creator, designers or builder. As we all know, it takes a team of workers to build a house. And it takes a team of game designers to design a video game. So just because there's a creator doesn't automatically mean there has to be only one, as Christian theology assumes.

You gotta keep all this in mind and look at the big picture.
Adama wrote: Has anyone seen this movie yet?
I haven't yet, but I plan to soon. It's available now for DVD purchase or online streaming at their website: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com

You can stream it online for a small fee. Why don't you do that and be the first here to see it? Then write up a review of it, both here and on their IMDB page:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2458876/
Winston, since when do you enforce political correctness? Ad hominem attacks? Dudes on here curse you everyday. Ironical. Have it your way though. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying they hate God. If you had written that it was wrong to call them dogs then I could agree. It is clear when they hate God. You might say that it isn't so clear that they are dogs, which some of them definitely are.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Do you remember that? Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. WHY? Lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and REND (tear apart) YOU! Pigs and dogs do not value anything like truth. That's why they oppose it.

We all know that God (Jesus) built this world. You'll learn that one day. Every knee will bow before the Lord, even those who deny His existence. It will not be good to be them on that day (or any day for that matter). Broad is the path that leads to destruction, and there are many which enter therein. Narrow is the path which leads to life, and there are few that find it!
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: "The Principle" Movie: New Proof of Earth Centered Unive

Post by Adama » June 1st, 2016, 1:04 am

This guy tries to prove the existence of Jesus without relying heavily on scripture.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMA41EVDhqw[/youtube]

It doesn't matter anyhow. We already know from my Bible verses thread that there are many people who simply don't want to believe in Jesus. Those people are already condemned, as is every unbeliever. When they perish, they will open their eyes in hell for eternity; everlasting torment. The worst part must be that it lasts forever.

Of course there is no proof that such a place as that is real either. The only proof there is in this life is our faith. In the next life, after unbelievers die and after believers go to sleep in Jesus, everything will become manifest: the saved to everlasting glory, rest, joy and peace with The Lord; the unsaved to eternal shame and suffering in bonds and chains.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Principle" Movie: New Proof of Earth Centered Unive

Post by Winston » June 1st, 2016, 9:00 pm

WOW! AMAZING! I just saw the documentary "The Principle"! Very amazing, mind blowing and awe inspiring. The scientific evidence presented and its implications will shock you and astound you, just as much as it has many leading cosmologists. It's a definite MUST SEE and is very exciting as well! This could be the starting point of a whole paradigm shift in cosmology and our place in the universe!

You can rent it online for only 8 dollars, which is very cheap and what I did. Do so and then let us know what you think. Post your review, here and on IMDB.com. We only want REAL reviews from people who have seen all of it though, all 90 minutes of it, not BS dishonest reviews from people who have NOT seen it. Also, pass the link on to others as well, so you can help generate awareness of these important discoveries that astronomers and cosmologists are astounded by. Here is the link to rent the film or get a DVD of it. You all MUST SEE IT!!!

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26611
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Winston » June 1st, 2016, 9:21 pm

Adama wrote: Winston, since when do you enforce political correctness? Ad hominem attacks? Dudes on here curse you everyday. Ironical. Have it your way though. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying they hate God. If you had written that it was wrong to call them dogs then I could agree. It is clear when they hate God. You might say that it isn't so clear that they are dogs, which some of them definitely are.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Do you remember that? Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. WHY? Lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and REND (tear apart) YOU! Pigs and dogs do not value anything like truth. That's why they oppose it.

We all know that God (Jesus) built this world. You'll learn that one day. Every knee will bow before the Lord, even those who deny His existence. It will not be good to be them on that day (or any day for that matter). Broad is the path that leads to destruction, and there are many which enter therein. Narrow is the path which leads to life, and there are few that find it!
I do not enforce political correctness of course. I enforce polite civilized behavior. I do give warnings for people who insult me too.

Saying that "they hate God" is kind of like George Bush saying that the terrorists "hate our freedoms". It doesn't make sense. Atheists do not believe God exists, so they cannot hate him. That's a contradiction. What would be more accurate would be to say:

"Atheists do not want to accept the existence of God because they do not want to be a accountable to a higher power. They want to do whatever they want without being accountable to anyone or judged by anyone, except themselves."

That explanation would make more sense psychologically.

What Atheists don't understand is that many of the masses, or a large percentage of people in general, do NEED religion and a belief in a God in order to live a moral life and behave. If the whole world were Atheists, many would simply do all the evil they want or can get away with at least. Some people don't have a strong conscience. So Atheists are wrong to think that all people can be good and moral without religion. Many cannot. That's one of their fallacies, among many.

Thanks for the video Adama. I've seen part of it before. It looks good. Is it by Chris White, the same guy who made the video debunking evolution? If so, he is a great filmmaker and presenter.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Principle - New evidence of God and Geocentric unive

Post by Adama » June 1st, 2016, 11:27 pm

Winston wrote:
Adama wrote: Winston, since when do you enforce political correctness? Ad hominem attacks? Dudes on here curse you everyday. Ironical. Have it your way though. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying they hate God. If you had written that it was wrong to call them dogs then I could agree. It is clear when they hate God. You might say that it isn't so clear that they are dogs, which some of them definitely are.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Do you remember that? Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. WHY? Lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and REND (tear apart) YOU! Pigs and dogs do not value anything like truth. That's why they oppose it.

We all know that God (Jesus) built this world. You'll learn that one day. Every knee will bow before the Lord, even those who deny His existence. It will not be good to be them on that day (or any day for that matter). Broad is the path that leads to destruction, and there are many which enter therein. Narrow is the path which leads to life, and there are few that find it!
I do not enforce political correctness of course. I enforce polite civilized behavior. I do give warnings for people who insult me too.

Saying that "they hate God" is kind of like George Bush saying that the terrorists "hate our freedoms". It doesn't make sense. Atheists do not believe God exists, so they cannot hate him. That's a contradiction. What would be more accurate would be to say:

"Atheists do not want to accept the existence of God because they do not want to be a accountable to a higher power. They want to do whatever they want without being accountable to anyone or judged by anyone, except themselves."

That explanation would make more sense psychologically.

What Atheists don't understand is that many of the masses, or a large percentage of people in general, do NEED religion and a belief in a God in order to live a moral life and behave. If the whole world were Atheists, many would simply do all the evil they want or can get away with at least. Some people don't have a strong conscience. So Atheists are wrong to think that all people can be good and moral without religion. Many cannot. That's one of their fallacies, among many.

Thanks for the video Adama. I've seen part of it before. It looks good. Is it by Chris White, the same guy who made the video debunking evolution? If so, he is a great filmmaker and presenter.
You can believe that atheists don't hate God. That is only your opinion. Now do you want scientific facts for every opinion of mine? I can't provide such data. Neither can most posters here provide any facts for most of their beliefs and opinions, Winston.

Atheists hate God. If they didn't hate God, they wouldn't be so busy trying to counter Him. There are many atheists who claim to know the Bible more than believers do. Why would they take up such a task if they did not hate God? Is it just for sport? Why not spend their time doing things they enjoy, rather than bothering with a non-existent being? If God doesn't exist, why do they waste their time learning the Bible, trying to trip up Christians, speaking against Him? That would be foolishness to spend your time countering something that doesn't exist, especially when you claim you know God is non-existent. How stupid would it be to spend your time arguing against something that doesn't exist? Why would you bother with that? It makes no sense to hate someone who doesn't exist. If you don't believe God exists, you should not hate Him, you are quite correct here.

Winston, why does anyone speak against you? Do you think those people who speak against you are merely neutral? If they say they don't hate you, yet say and do things which demonstrate that they do hate you, can you say they don't really hate you?

The thing is, atheists know God exists. They just reject Him. You don't accept that.

Naturally this is not all atheists, just a significant portion of them so that I can say this. For example, would it be terrible to say Jews control banking? Surely not every Jew is in banking, but does that fact nullify that Jews are the bankers? If I said American women are skanks, does it matter if not every one of them is a skank?
If the whole world were Atheists, many would simply do all the evil they want or can get away with at least.
See, you just did it yourself. You just called Atheists evil, amoral, and trying to get away with everything they can. Yet people who do such things, who break God's laws continually, don't hate Him. Sure sure. They just hate His rules. They're okay with Him. It's just His rules they despise. If you love to break His commandments, He says that means you hate HIM. In fact, when you read it, it says "despise". God says that those people who commit ungodly sin hate Him. You can't just hate His laws. He made those laws. Of course they hate God for His laws. God demands they live a certain way which they don't want to do.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Movies, Music, Celebrities, Entertainment”