So it looks like people NEED the religion scam.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really don't get it about your credibility to be put in the same shoes as Freaky.

That is not a good thing. I get the strong feeling if the Soviets had won the race to the moon and we decided not to got there and THEY had the videos and moon buggies and such, NOBODY would claim it was faked.

You claim it was faked BECAUSE it was NASA.

Also BTW ...[text shortened]... about the sources for such BS stories before you obsess over the moon landing denier conspiracy.

Question for you: Why hasn't NASA been back to the moon?

I've heard some official lines why they haven't, but surely building a moon base is worth the effort.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"If those six moon walks weren't authentic...."

They were. Nobody was mislead. Stop being silly.

What do you think Neil Armstrong meant by saying that it was up to the next generation that would " remove one of truth's protective layers" ?

What do you think Neil Armstrong meant by saying that it was up to the next generation that would " remove one of truth's protective layers" ?

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?

Originally posted by sonship

What do you think Neil Armstrong meant by saying that it was up to the next generation that would " remove one of truth's protective layers" ?

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 ...[text shortened]... s "protective layers" that need removal by generations following that of the Apollo astronauts?

Context jaywill. It's all about CONTEXT.

It's remarkable how prone you are to taking words out of context and making something out of them without seriously considering the context.

It's how you approach scripture. Evidently you use that approach with other things as well. Is that a requirement to believe as you do?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Context jaywill. It's all about CONTEXT.

It's remarkable how prone you are to taking words out of context and making something out of them without seriously considering the context.

It's how you approach scripture. Evidently you use that approach with other things as well. Is that a requirement to believe as you do?

Hearing the entire speech would be helpful if you are talking about Neil Armstrong's comment about one of truth's protective layers.

I am not at all impressed by your little lecture on context in the realm of interpreting the Bible. If you think you have something to teach me about reading the Bible in context, I sure haven't seen it in the years you've been harping on your favorite passages.

I think by biblical "context" you actually mean what conforms to what you've decided are the meanings of Jesus' words "while He walked on earth". The expression meaning something like a modernistic filtering out and discarding all that disallows a purely naturalistic humanist teacher out of Christ, but certainly not God become a man.

I think that is your sense of proper Bible "context".

Originally posted by sonship
Hearing the entire speech would be helpful if you are talking about Neil Armstrong's comment about one of truth's protective layers.

I am not at all impressed by your little lecture on context in the realm of interpreting the Bible. If you think you have something to teach me about reading the Bible in context, I sure haven't seen it in the years you' ...[text shortened]... but certainly not God become a man.

I think that is your sense of proper Bible "context".

It's funny what some people have tried to make out of that phrase. Presumably you brought it up because you've bought into it. Googling that phrase brought up some really funny stuff.

This one was particularly funny:

Most of us have seen the video of Armstrong getting teary-eyed while he talks about getting through one of "truth's protective layers". And a lot of us took that as a sign that he knows far more than he's talking about.

I believe that he needs to go public with what he knows immediately. He may believe that the oath he took not to reveal the information is important. But he made that oath to the military or an alphabet agency who is holding a gun to his head in one form or another.

The oath he took is less important than his allegiance to the United States itself and its citizens. And we, as the people who paid for his mission, deserve the total, unabridged truth pertaining to exactly what did or did not happen during his mission to the moon. After all, NASA is a civilian agency, right?

I'm pretty sure that there are people on this website that have access to Neil and can get this information to him in one way or the other.

As an Air Force aircrew member I also took an oath. I understand the conflict. But all of us deserve the truth right now. And I hope he doesn't think that dying with his secret will be honorable. What it would be is cowardly.

He is, by his inaction, preventing the entire world from moving into a new and exciting era, even as he brought us into one. The time for silence is over. And the truth will set us free.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread529858/pg1

Are these the kind of nutjobs that have been influencing you?

If you think you have something to teach me about reading the Bible in context, I sure haven't seen it in the years you've been harping on your favorite passages.

I'd gathered you've been unable to "see" it. Evidently you're also struggling with being able to "see" the ludicrousness of believing that the moon landings were fake.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You need to consider Hinds your personal warning, as to the dangers of watching youtube conspiracies.

You say it makes no difference to your Christian faith, but it really does compromise your credibility as a poster worth listening to. Do you truly want to put yourself in the same bracket as Hinds or Freaky?!

sonship once famously said to me when talking about his belief in eternal hell fire that (more or less verbatim):

The lost will be hung in chains of punishment as a warning to those on other worlds

It's interesting how he will accept that there are beings on other planets who can witness the billions and billions of people in hell being burnt alive for eternity by his version of god, and yet doubts that man walked on the moon.

Sonship's strange beliefs.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's funny what some people have tried to make out of that phrase. Presumably you brought it up because you've bought into it. Googling that phrase brought up some really funny stuff.

This one was particularly funny:
[quote]Most of us have seen the video of Armstrong getting teary-eyed while he talks about getting through one of "truth's protective l ...[text shortened]... ggling with being able to "see" the ludicrousness of believing that the moon landings were fake.

You can gather this or gather that.
What I thought you were going to do was speak of the "context" the comment in a larger sense.

I thought you were going to show context not boast how tickled you are about some paragraph I have never seen.

Since you boast on "context" have YOU heard the whole talk Neil gave yourself before you came to me with your little lecture on context ?

Originally posted by sonship
You can gather this or gather that.
What I thought you were going to do was speak of the "context" the comment in a larger sense.

I thought you were going to show context not boast how tickled you are about some paragraph I have never seen.

Since you boast on "context" have YOU heard the whole talk Neil gave yourself before you came to me with your little lecture on context ?

You seem to have missed the point of my post. But then, that's not at all unusual for you.

I had found enough of the surrounding text to be able to discern what Armstrong was getting at. It was as I had suspected:

"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."

Pasted from <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/neil-armstrong-man-moon-dead/story?id=12325140>

Originally posted by sonship
You can gather this or gather that.
What I thought you were going to do was speak of the "context" the comment in a larger sense.

I thought you were going to show context not boast how tickled you are about some paragraph I have never seen.

Since you boast on "context" have YOU heard the whole talk Neil gave yourself before you came to me with your little lecture on context ?

I've just listened to his entire speech and there is nothing at all in it that implies that he his trying to pass a veiled message to his audience. The comment about layers of protected truth is obviously referring to breakthrough discovery, pioneering enterprise and the spirit of exploration. It's not a great speech in my opinion and he is not comfortable with public speaking. If he wanted to pass a message but was scared to do so, all he has to do was make a video recording and have it sent to several new agencies after his death.

Originally posted by divegeester
sonship once famously said to me when talking about his belief in eternal hell fire that (more or less verbatim):

[b]The lost will be hung in chains of punishment as a warning to those on other worlds

It's interesting how he will accept that there are beings on other planets who can witness the billions and billions of people in hell being bur ...[text shortened]... version of god, and yet doubts that man walked on the moon.

Sonship's strange beliefs.[/b]

So let's see which passage is a strange belief Divegeester.

Jude 6 is strange to believe ? Then it is "strange" according to what Jude wrote.

Or Matthew 25:41,46 is strange to believe ? You'll have to blame the Son of God for that. He uttered it.

Or is it Daniel 12:4 that is strange for me to believe?
Then it is "strange" according to what God inspired the prophet Daniel to write in his book.

So is it Isaiah 66:22-24 just too "strange" to believe ?
Jesus referred back to the phraseology of the passage in the synoptic Gospels.
It seems it wasn't too "strange" for Him to remind His audience of its seriousness.

What divegeester is doing is appealing to your emotions.

Confined and punished is the accumulative effect of considering the passages together.
Furthermore if you regard the passages as the oracles of God, whether we can explain the mechanics of them or not, the effect is there will be a witnessing of God's judgment upon His un-reconciled enemies.

Now in his next post Divegeester can explain why the high praise of Hallelujah does not appear in the New Testament UNTIL it appear in connection with the saints of God witnessing the judgment of Babylon the great whose smoke is seen to go up "forever and ever".

This is the first usage of this high expression of rejoicing in the New Testament.

"After these things I heard as it were a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, Hallelujah! The salvation and the glory and the power of our God.

For true and righteous are His judgments; for He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and He avenged the blood of His slaves at her hand.

And the second time they said, Hallelujah! And her smoke goes up forever and ever.

And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped God, who sits upon the throne, saying, Amen, Hallelujah!" (Rev. 19:1-4)

The Gospel of Luke tells me that there is great rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repents and comes to salvation (Luke 15:7,10). It is not strange that I should believe this.

It would be strange if I did not also believe the passage about great joy and Hallelujahs about the smoke of an entity that opposed God and killed His saints going up forever and ever.

It would be strange for me to hold Luke 15:7,10 as true but Revelation 19:1-4 as not believable.

Why should I accept Luke 15:7,10 but find "strange" and unbelievable Revelation 19:1-4 ?

The New Testament reveals a rejoicing at eternal salvation.
And the New Testament reveals a rejoicing at eternal judgment which the multitudes of the saints in heaven declare as the judgments of God "TRUE and RIGHTEOUS" .

Are you suggesting that the smoke of the judgment of this God opposing entity going up forever and ever are not the "true and righteous" judgment of God ?

Try to answer the questions specifically rather than, like Balaam and Balak running around to another angle to see fault with God's believers.

is there or is there not rejoicing in the judgment of some of the worst enemies of God with Hallelujah's in the New Testament ? Remember, what they say is "true and righteous" judgment is both God's vengeance and the smoke of destruction going up "forever and ever".

And the second time they said, Hallelujah! And her smoke goes up forever and ever.

Originally posted by sonship
So let's see which passage is a strange belief Divegeester.

[b]Jude 6 is strange to believe ? Then it is "strange" according to what Jude wrote.

Or Matthew 25:41,46 is strange to believe ? You'll have to blame the Son of God for that. He uttered it.

Or is it Daniel 12:4 that is strange for me to believe?
Then it is "s ...[text shortened]... And the second time they said, Hallelujah! And her smoke goes up forever and ever. [/b] [/quote][/b]

Good grief!

Originally posted by sonship
So let's see which passage is a strange belief Divegeester

I'm not referring to any "passage" sonship, I'm quoting you!

The lost will be hung in chains of punishment as a warning to those on other worlds

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to have missed the point of my post. But then, that's not at all unusual for you.

I had found enough of the surrounding text to be able to discern what Armstrong was getting at. It was as I had suspected:

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers," he said in 1 ...[text shortened]... d from <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/neil-armstrong-man-moon-dead/story?id=12325140>

"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 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.

He certainly was not known for being allowed to give many public briefings about his momentous accomplishment. For a walk on the moon you would have thought he'd be speaking of it in public again and again for the rest of his life.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not referring to any "passage" sonship, I'm quoting you!

[b]The lost will be hung in chains of punishment as a warning to those on other worlds [/b]

Link me to the entire post where you cut that out.

This is "context" night. So let me see my post you appear to have handy.
I don't know where it is.

I also don't see the space aliens you love to jolly on me about in that little bolded sentence. Is it a direct quote? Let me see the whole thing.

Lastly, were the evil angels in "eternal bonds" or "eternal chains" a warning or not ?
See Jude 6.