"Unrestored" version will feature no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits"
If you’re half crazy all for the love of Stanley Kubrick’s sci-fi masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey, you’re in luck. To mark its 50th anniversary, Warner Bros.’ is opening its archives’ pod bay doors to present a theatrical re-release of the film.
Docking in select theaters on May 18th, WB’s reissue is an “unrestored” 70mm print “struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative,” according to a studio statement (via The Wrap). “This is a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits.” That means the movie will be presented in a way that’s as close to Kubrick’s original vision as possible.
This new 70mm print will make its debut at Cannes Film Festival with an introduction from Christopher Nolan. The director called the chance to introduce one of his favorite works of cinema in “all its analog glory… an honor and a privilege.”
A fully restored version of 2001 will also be available on DVD and Blu-ray later this year. Revisit the original trailer below.
That's because it is boring. The overall plot is good -- an intelligent, self-learning computer figures out it has to take over the ship it's on, with the background of explaining man's origins -- but..... it's boring.
Many movies from that era are. Space travel at that time was the latest craze with the Apollo program & moon landings, and the emphasis of the movie was to dramatize space travel. They did that, but by today's evolved cinematic standards, 2001 is boring.
By contrast, Star Wars came along some 9 years later and recast space travel as routine and common, and added excitement which was doubtless key to it's success.
Not that 2001 is a bad movie. It is what it is, and it still has a certain classical charm to it, especially with the sound track.
By contrast, Star Wars came along some 9 years later and recast space travel as routine and common, and added excitement which was doubtless key to it's success.
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
2001 was far more realistic about what space travel is like. Star Wars is just fantasy space opera.
Indeed, REAL space travel is certainly boring, stuck in a relatively small spaceship with nothing to do but monitor systems and maintain life support. If the idea is to make a movie about space travel as it would be in real life, the result will be a boring movie, and in that respect, 2001 certainly overplayed the excitement.
But people don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home. Documentaries are an exception, but 2001 was of course no documentary.
People don't go to the movies to get a dose of realism. If they want that, they can stay home.
RE: "Realism."
NOT any "Moon Landing" in my opinion. It's easily the Top 3 of Greatest Charades.
For such a supposed unprecedented, historical event we have amazing little proof that it happened. There should be mountains of video and photographic proof. BUT...meh...
But...but...when da Gummint tells you "IT HAPPENED!!" it...er...happened!! Cuz they wouldn't lie, would they?
For such a supposed unprecedented, historical event we have amazing little proof that it happened. There should be mountains of video and photographic proof. BUT...meh...
All it takes to settle the matter one way or the other is a high powered telescope zoomed in on the alleged landing sites. It's easily done in this day and age, and I think even a small observatory has the optical power to show what's there.
All it takes to settle the matter one way or the other is a high powered telescope zoomed in on the alleged landing sites. It's easily done in this day and age, and I think even a small observatory has the optical power to show what's there.
Ok, but first you need that kind of small observatory with high powered telescope; THEN it needs to be authenticated (but from whom and BY would this authority be trusted?)
THEN the photos need to be authorized and released to the general public (with proper permission.)
Q: Why hasn't this procedure already been addressed?
Perhaps like me you have scoured different sources to either validate or invalidate to "Moon Landings." We see photos of star-less black skies observed; With no oxygen, the scene should have been spectacular.
Not only that, there are no real clear shots of planet earth (which should have loomed fairly large.) Wouldn't those photos of Earth be #1 priorities? From what -- 2-3 landings?) /rhetorical
Then there are the directional lighting problems of the ship, undisturbed landing site -- just a plethora of technical problems that just don't add up. (just venting here.)
For SOME reason, we have been conditioned to just accept the word of NASA and Gummint: "WE WENT TO THE MOON. PERIOD. If you don't believe it you're a nut. Or worse: a CT."
Ok, but first you need that kind of small observatory with high powered telescope; THEN it needs to be authenticated (but from whom and BY would this authority be trusted?)
Hehe... you are kind of big on this authority thing, aren't you?? :^)
The observatory itself would have an implicit stamp of authenticity, if not explicit. No, the observatory would not make a claim as to whether things are or are not in the photo that prove/disprove the moon landing. The observatory itself would simply say that such a photo was of moon coordinates or some such, and let the photo speak for itself.
Other observatories would be available to do a similar image, so any fraud carried out by the first observatory would be easily discovered, and the observatory's reputation gravely compromised. So the "authority" would be upon pain of public discredit, which for an observatory would be a substantial authority.
We see photos of star-less black skies observed; With no oxygen, the scene should have been spectacular.
No, that's not true at all, as any film photographer could tell you. Or even a digital photographer, I imagine.
While yes, light from stars on those moon shots would certainly be entering the lens and could, in theory, be recorded along with all else, the problem is that the amount of starlight would be infinitesimal compared to the amount of light reflected from the moonscape, which would certainly be enormous given, again, the lack of atmosphere filtering the full sun. Image recording surfaces can only tolerate a certain amount of light. If it's not enough, nothing registers. If it's too much, then everything shows completely white. To get an actual image, the strength of the light has to be scaled to the sensitivity of the recording surface of whatever type.
For the moonscape photos, a light filter of some kind would need to be employed. That might only be the F-stop of the camera (the size of the pinhole near the lens controlling the amount of light enters the camera -- the camera's counterpart to the iris in the eye). Or it could instead be essentially sun glasses on the camera.
But the bottom line is that in order to image blazingly bright moonscape correctly, the cameras on the moon would have certainly been adjusted to be far too insensitive for starlight to register at all. If that sensitivity would have been increased to the point where stars would show, the moon scape would have been completely white with no detail whatsoever. And this is all the more true with 1970's technology.
Anyone could easily experiment with this by simply attempting to photograph stars with any cell phone camera. Take a photo of the full moon on a clear night, and tell me how many stars you see in the resulting image. Even on a moonless night, it might be hard to make any stars show at all. Our eyes are far superior to cameras in that regard.
I'm willing to hear arguments against the moon landings, but this particular one I have dismissed out of hand.
Not only that, there are no real clear shots of planet earth (which should have loomed fairly large.) Wouldn't those photos of Earth be #1 priorities? From what -- 2-3 landings?) /rhetorical
Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module.
Accepting claims blindly is certainly the way of man. All should indeed be considered and tested.
The observatory itself would have an implicit stamp of authenticity, if not explicit. No, the observatory would not make a claim as to whether things are or are not in the photo that prove/disprove the moon landing. The observatory itself would simply say that such a photo was of moon coordinates or some such, and let the photo speak for itself.
Other observatories would be available to do a similar image, so any fraud carried out by the first observatory would be easily discovered, and the observatory's reputation gravely compromised. So the "authority" would be upon pain of public discredit, which for an observatory would be a substantial authority.
Yes, IN THEORY, more than one observatory could corroborate each others findings while also corroborating alleged NASA "landing sites".
But HERE is the problem THESE DAYS: With the technological development and high degree of CGI and other virtual reality techniques, photography as well as video can no longer truly be trusted. Surely you realize this.
Then there is the other factor to consider -- and this is no small one: The credibility of a Government-Science-Hollywood-Media Complex itself and agenda to alter "Reality" and perception OF Reality.
We are witnessing the degree to which these same forces have been allied, combining to successfully alter the mind-set of millions with respect to but hardly limited to "Global Warming," "History," the dramatic contrast in treatement of the past two Presidents, normalizing transvestism, cultural/scientific/social psyOps ad nauseam.
Now again -- if you and others prefer to focus solely on the validity of the alleged "Moon Landings", there is also the issue of negotiating what would have been the Van Allen Radiation Belt and non-protective flimsy "spacesuits" worn by Armstrong etal.
But the bottom line is that in order to image blazingly bright moonscape correctly, the cameras on the moon would have certainly been adjusted to be far too insensitive for starlight to register at all. If that sensitivity would have been increased to the point where stars would show, the moon scape would have been completely white with no detail whatsoever. And this is all the more true with 1970's technology.
Anyone could easily experiment with this by simply attempting to photograph stars with any cell phone camera. Take a photo of the full moon on a clear night, and tell me how many stars you see in the resulting image. Even on a moonless night, it might be hard to make any stars show at all. Our eyes are far superior to cameras in that regard.
I'm willing to hear arguments against the moon landings, but this particular one I have dismissed out of hand.
I would have to cut and past several technological articles and explanations to address what are legit questions.
I find it frankly absurd to believe that NASA would not have included special filters for astronaut camera that would have addressed any "blazingly bright" problem that would have displayed ZERO stars in photos. Again -- remember on the moon there is no oxygen; On earth via observatories we are still having to view the cosmos through deep layers of atmosphere. Even on the clearest night.
Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module.
Is that the photo TC has uncovered?
There should be HUNDREDS of Moon-to-Earth photos. (Shouldn't there be??)
OF NOTE: Did you know Neil Armstrong has NEVER given in in depth interview with respect to his "Moon Landing" experience?
But HERE is the problem THESE DAYS: With the technological development and high degree of CGI and other virtual reality techniques, photography as well as video can no longer truly be trusted. Surely you realize this.
Absolutely. You've certainly noted my analysis of that photo as well. It does not seem real to me. In addition, the earth seems exceptionally high in resolution, which suggest more modern optics.
I do not suggest we accept the word of anyone, or anything, claiming to be speaking for the truth. But that does not mean that anyone with an agenda is speaking lies. I very much favor studying content as part of making the determination of whether a claim is true or not. I will do it with the moon landing. And I will do it with the Bible. As an aside, why are you so quick to doubt the word of modern "authorities" about the moon landing, but accept without doubt the word of ancient biblical writers on the nature of God? How do you resolve that seeming inconsistency?
Then there is the other factor to consider -- and this is no small one: The credibility of a Government-Science-Hollywood-Media Complex itself and agenda to alter "Reality" and perception OF Reality.
I'm first to agree MSM can't be trusted. As a present example, I do not believe Russia or Putin was behind the Skripal nerve agent poisoning. It makes no sense at all. Of all Americans that have ill-regard for Putin, I'd say not one in 100 has ever heard or read a single word he's uttered. From what I have observed, Putin is a good man interested in peace, highly intelligent, doing great things for Russia, and very much on the defensive from Western expansionism over the last 15 years. He's also one we should be thankful is running Russia. If it were instead someone of the likes of Hillary, WW3 may have already started. Though some do claim he's murdered journalists, it appears from all else Putin is truly a good man at heart and deserves that considered possibility.
That aside, and back to topic.....
The penalty of discredit for an observatory would be severe. These are scientists, and about the worst crime scientists could be convicted of is purposely releasing false information about their science to the public as though it was real information. I am serious is saying that is a real deterrent. For the degree of conspiracy you propose, it would require extreme amount of trust for one compromised scientist to trust hundreds or thousands of other scientists to not debunk them.
This is not to say scientists cannot be biased in their research which can skew their results. They certainly can be. But I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about outright fraud.
Now again -- if you and others prefer to focus solely on the validity of the alleged "Moon Landings", there is also the issue of negotiating what would have been the Van Allen Radiation Belt and non-protective flimsy "spacesuits" worn by Armstrong etal.
I've not researched those. Perhaps they are best left for another day.
I would have to cut and past several technological articles and explanations to address what are legit questions.
Perhaps also left for another discussion. But from what I currently understand, it's no surprise to me that no stars are visible on 1970's alleged moon landing photos.
Again -- remember on the moon there is no oxygen;
Which while obstructing no starlight, also obstructs no sun light. The moon surface would have been brighter than death valley at noon, so the relative difference in light strength would have been, more or less, the same.
Well, there is a famous one called "Earth Rise" allegedly showing the earth from the orbiting lunar module.
Is that the photo TC has uncovered?
No, as "earth rise" was photoed from the lunar orbiter as earth appeared over a moon horizon. As the moon is tidally locked to earth, moon inhabitants would never see the earth rise as we on earth see the moon rise.
But HERE is the problem THESE DAYS: With the technological development and high degree of CGI and other virtual reality techniques, photography as well as video can no longer truly be trusted. Surely you realize this.
Absolutely. You've certainly noted my analysis of that photo as well. It does not seem real to me. In addition, the earth seems exceptionally high in resolution, which suggest more modern optics.
Yup. I know you've made allowance for the possibility high-tech tampering and shenanigans that are so easy to pull off these days....
Planet Earth is seen in extremely hi-def in that photo as you noted, suggesting modern optics.
I do not suggest we accept the word of anyone, or anything, claiming to be speaking for the truth. But that does not mean that anyone with an agenda is speaking lies.
I very much favor studying content as part of making the determination of whether a claim is true or not. I will do it with the moon landing. And I will do it with the Bible. As an aside, why are you so quick to doubt the word of modern "authorities" about the moon landing, but accept without doubt the word of ancient biblical writers on the nature of God? How do you resolve that seeming inconsistency?
There is of course validity to what you claim on the subject of agendas that aren't necessarily based on lies. The claims *could* be made on what is perceived as THE truth, which we agree isn't the same.
With respect to the claims of the Bible and the matter of "inconsistencies," can you be more specific? For now I'll briefly (for me) address it/them. But we have other ground to cover as well :-)
Yes, belief in Scripture from Adam and Eve to Jesus' Resurrection and Return, AND Gospel requires faith. But then I would also submit that NO belief or claims in history are as sourced with multiple testimony and proof of corroboration. Bible-believing people are NOT robotic zombies who do not seek truth and scientific evidence. That is purely myth.
IF the subject of "truth" surely interests you -- and you've already stated that it does indeed -- I highly recommend the purchase a Study Bible -- 'The MacArthur Study Bible' specifically. You would be blown away by its attention to the most minute of detail and corroboration of fact and testimony; questions you now doubt still have. You see, one can read the Bible from cover-to-cover and STILL not understand much of it (ironically.)
Any comparison of measuring the same criteria of questions and answers with respect to the Bible to those of NASA to be frank is ludicrous (with all due respect.) One is 100% transparent and backed up by eye-witness testimony -- more amazing in that the tabs were maintained for thousands of years BY NAME, DEED, and chronology. The account is told, learned and believed by Free Will.
The other is supported by fuzzy details, minimal corroboration and testimony as well as by political and economic motivation and coercion. It does NOT welcome scrutiny. NASA dismisses challenges and demands for details. ANY and ALL Truth must stand up to strict standards of extreme scrutiny.
With respect to the scribes aka "men" of the Bible (the Author is God Himself), they and the prophets spoke and transcribed God's own words. Many have conceded this; There is no subterfuge here.
Bible Scribes vs. NASA Advocates. Are they really analogous? One abides in The Altruistic and Spiritual at the highest degree vs. the Other which operates from a Material/Ppolitical/Scientific agenda. As a positive aside, I could also say the same Altruistic goals motivates those like you who believe in "The Newton Model" in principle -- even though I don't subscribe to its "model."
While I don't believe those who subscribe to the "Moon Landings" are necessarily anti-altruistic or subscribe to a particular agenda, they may be prone to accepting 'authority" without too closely examining or scrutinizing the facts or "proof" OR...the possibility/plausibility of political/economic agendas. Again, this is merely MY opinion.
I'm first to agree MSM can't be trusted. As a present example, I do not believe Russia or Putin was behind the Skripal nerve agent poisoning. It makes no sense at all. Of all Americans that have ill-regard for Putin, I'd say not one in 100 has ever heard or read a single word he's uttered. From what I have observed, Putin is a good man interested in peace, highly intelligent, doing great things for Russia, and very much on the defensive from Western expansionism over the last 15 years. He's also one we should be thankful is running Russia. If it were instead someone of the likes of Hillary, WW3 may have already started. Though some do claim he's murdered journalists, it appears from all else Putin is truly a good man at heart and deserves that considered possibility.
Your observations and analyses of Putin are interesting. On much of it, I agree.
Firstly, we may be in agreement in that between the MSM reporting and Gummint dissemination, neither can be trusted. And since there has been a concerted effort to demonize Putin (same of Trump), any and all "reports" of either are not trusted for accuracy.
Putin is for Putin; Yes, he appears to demonstrate some sincere concern for humanity in general and appears to have a morality-based conscience. He is no angel, but in the context of those in power at this time, he is amazingly reserved.
He prioritizes the interests of Mother Russia -- that is to be expected, a big plus. At least he is interested in supporting the concept of "Sovereignty"; AND rejecting any international coercion to join and betray his own people by making them subjects at the whims of a Globalist Cabal.
That aside, and back to topic.....
The penalty of discredit for an observatory would be severe. These are scientists, and about the worst crime scientists could be convicted of is purposely releasing false information about their science to the public as though it was real information. I am serious is saying that is a real deterrent. For the degree of conspiracy you propose, it would require extreme amount of trust for one compromised scientist to trust hundreds or thousands of other scientists to not debunk them.
This is not to say scientists cannot be biased in their research which can skew their results. They certainly can be. But I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about outright fraud.
"Global Warming" has already been proven to be a fraud as countless scientists were compensated/bribed/coerced by un-named financiers to skew their opinion. (Some have even been knocked off.)
How close were we from being fooled and the Elites from winning this Fake Science Issue? Algore was THAT close from establishing an alternative currency and tax based on "Carbon Footprints" and a "Carbon Credit System".
These kinds of conspiracies and the seemingly impossible numbers of participants who must maintain silence -- haven't these large ensembles and charades been orchestrated for decades? With control of the Messenger (the MSM) there is complete control of the Message. (See JFK/Warren Report, 911, 0bama Past, several false flag shooting, Benghazi, Arab Spring, Trump Coup, etc.)
Which while obstructing no starlight, also obstructs no sun light. The moon surface would have been brighter than death valley at noon, so the relative difference in light strength would have been, more or less, the same.
Camera lens. Directional photography.
We might be able be able to give a mulligan on the FIRST alleged Apollo Landing, but NOT the others. NASA sends human to the moon but lack proper cameras and lens and a plan to photograph the Earth? (They could have even taken a few clear, detailed shots from the cabin. Instead we got some fuzzy fake ones.)
No, as "earth rise" was photoed from the lunar orbiter as earth appeared over a moon horizon. As the moon is tidally locked to earth, moon inhabitants would never see the earth rise as we on earth see the moon rise.
Thanks for the clarification. And technical knowledge. So...No "Earth Rise" or "Moon Set"? Bummer. I'd have never figured out that one.
Deckard posted (up-thread) scientists' explanation on the dangers of a space ship negotiating the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
Since we're having more long winded discussions, I would like to suggest you take advantage of a "reply" feature.
Preceding any quoted paragraphs with ">>", provided they appear first in the line, causes the software to automatically italicize AND indent the whole paragraph. It's most handy when you want to interject many comments in a longer post.
Yes, belief in Scripture from Adam and Eve to Jesus' Resurrection and Return, AND Gospel requires faith. But then I would also submit that NO belief or claims in history are as sourced with multiple testimony and proof of corroboration.
Yet you do suggest scientists are willing to all corroborate on false facts, but nonetheless call it a conspiracy and not verification and "multiple testimony".
Bible-believing people are NOT robotic zombies who do not seek truth and scientific evidence. That is purely myth.
This is a blanket statement and I submit it is absolutely not the case with many. Not all, of course, but many. They believe it because it's in the Bible. It's no doubt also the case with many believing scientific claims that are skewed or not true at all.
IF the subject of "truth" surely interests you -- and you've already stated that it does indeed -- I highly recommend the purchase a Study Bible -- 'The MacArthur Study Bible' specifically. You would be blown away by its attention to the most minute of detail and corroboration of fact and testimony; questions you now doubt still have.
If I did, would you read Michael Newton's "Journey of Souls?"
I'll confess I'm asking more rhetorically as I don't have time and, honestly, inclination as I'm sure you also feel about reading one of Newton's books.
Any comparison of measuring the same criteria of questions and answers with respect to the Bible to those of NASA to be frank is ludicrous (with all due respect.) One is 100% transparent and backed up by eye-witness testimony
Eye witness testimony of people who have long since died, along with anyone who ever knew them? Sorry but without the ability to answer to challenges or cross examination, it's just not eye-witness testimony. Not any more.
-- more amazing in that the tabs were maintained for thousands of years BY NAME, DEED, and chronology. The account is told, learned and believed by Free Will.
Historical accuracy does not equate ot theological accuracy, and I freely admit the Israelites were likely meticulous record keepers.
Bible Scribes vs. NASA Advocates. Are they really analogous? One abides in The Altruistic and Spiritual at the highest degree vs. the Other which operates from a Material/Ppolitical/Scientific agenda.
You cannot seriously suggest that religious doctrine has been immune to political influences throughout history. Certainly all these spheres have intertwined. The Church even excommunicated, or at least threatened to do so, Galileo over the question of whether the earth or Sun was the center of the universe! That is a classic example of the religious order imposing itself upon the scientific order.
And yes, reincarnation itself has been condemned as heresy within the last 2k years by leaders who sought more control over the common people. It's far more easy to control someone who believes that they have only one life to live, and will not see salvation unless they conform to the will of the emperor/church. People who believe in reincarnation are not going to be so compelled!
"Global Warming" has already been proven to be a fraud as countless scientists were compensated/bribed/coerced by un-named financiers to skew their opinion. (Some have even been knocked off.)
Global warming is far from something that can be settled with a single observation. But a single look at the alleged moon landing sites is something that can settle the moon landing matter immediately. Links to the Sky & Telescope site show images that purport to show the landing sites with disturbed moonscape features. If that is not enough, and admittedly they likely all come from the same source, how many different source photos would it take to convince you that it did indeed happen and that the evidence you have to the contrary must have some other explanation? Or will you stand by that evidence no matter what contrary evidence exists?
NASA sends human to the moon but lack proper cameras and lens and a plan to photograph the Earth? (They could have even taken a few clear, detailed shots from the cabin. Instead we got some fuzzy fake ones.)
Deckard posted (up-thread) scientists' explanation on the dangers of a space ship negotiating the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
Well, if you find your neighbor's dog in your living room, any assurances that it was impossible for him to be there because all doors and windows were locked doesn't change the fact that the dog is in your living room. If the moon landings occurred, there's an explanation about the radiation and all other evidentary claims. No one denies that astronauts are exposed to higher radiation than we get on earth.
The Bible's Judeo-Christian Doctrine and genesis of Creation, Moral Law, Redeption, Salvation, and Resolution of Justice, Judgment, and Eternity is clear, concise, corroborated to the hilt (even you conceded the meticulous record-keeping.) It's "Scribes" are the authors of the chapters of the Bible. Historically NONE of it has been refuted.
Meanwhile those who've changed it's doctrine are none other than...THE POPES AND VATICAN. (But we can get into all of it if you have the time/patience.)
Does Michael Newton ever explain his doctrine of "good" with respect to his "model"? And again -- by whose definition and authority? I know you find the notion of "authority" a tedious annoyance, but without Authority all we have are the words and authority of a man, who happened to be an Atheist (who must STILL have had those definitive attributes programmed by a Creator or "Programmer," correct?)
And why is it referred to as a "Model"? Doesn't "model" imply an Unfinished Product? Or version of an "Original"?
"Newton's Model" evokes far more questions than he/it answers; There is a mountain of assumptions made with scant support other than the "testimony" of a number hypnotic "clients" who've supposedly broken through to a different dimension of "Past Life Regression".
Michael Newton is not the only one to practice PLR, but the only one to create his "Model" -- which again, evokes far more questions than answers (which we'll get to.)
The Bible's Judeo-Christian Doctrine and genesis of Creation, Moral Law, Redeption, Salvation, and Resolution of Justice, Judgment, and Eternity is clear, concise, corroborated to the hilt (even you conceded the meticulous record-keeping.)
Genesis 1 most certainly cannot be included in as having been corroborated "to the hilt" or corroborated at all as by it's own admission, only 2 people were present who have no corroboration of even their existence. And that for the last half of the chapter. And in fact all other elements you list are not factual in nature such as when someone was born or reigned as king, but theological. My comments about meticulous record keepers refers to the hard facts of someone's birth, kingship or sometimes battles, not the theology, and their apparent high degree of care in replicating scrolls.
It's "Scribes" are the authors of the chapters of the Bible. Historically NONE of it has been refuted.
Again, this is at best with regard to hard facts, not theology or genesis 1.
Does Michael Newton ever explain his doctrine of "good" with respect to his "model"? And again -- by whose definition and authority? I know you find the notion of "authority" a tedious annoyance, but without Authority all we have are the words and authority of a man, who happened to be an Atheist (who must STILL have had those definitive attributes programmed by a Creator or "Programmer," correct?)
You believe the Bible is the "Word of God". By what authority? The Bible's own authority? Because it claims to be the Word of God, it must be true? I'm sure I could find things on the Internet that are in the same way true.
You are correct that I have difficulty understanding why this element is consistently important to you. I suspect it's because you believe you have this authority with the Bible, and it lets you rest your mind in a bubble-like sense of security to believe it without needing to conduct any further consideration of the Bible being anything less than the one and only gateway to God. And your challenge to me is whether I have this similar bubble-like sense of security with Newton's work, perhaps as though Newton is a prophet of God and everything he wrote is divinely and infallibly true.
But whether I have your criticism correct or not, I can say that no, I don't have that bubble-like sense of security with Newton's work, and the reason is because I remain open-minded, which I would submit you are not. Just as I have been willing to consider alternate views about the moon landing being faked, I am willing to consider alternative views that Newton was completely wrong or partially wrong. Or even a little bit wrong. An example is that I have a friend who believes she has, in an out-of-body experience witnessed the demonic realm. She is very much Christian, and everything else she relates about her out-of-body experience, especially in a car accident when she had an NDE, (and in fact was told by a first responder months later she did die). All those experiences are consistent with what I call the Newton model, but not any demonic hell. So if found myself just yesterday wondering if maybe that is a reality that Newton simply never found.
You, on the other hand, I submit, are not open minded when it comes to the Bible being the divinely inspired and infallible Word of God. You are close minded, perhaps for life, on any real consideration of the contrary, likely in part because the Bible itself tells it's readers that failing to believe and maintain faith invites eternal damnation. And given that penalty, I can certainly understand -- and not just sympathize but empathize with the difficulty of deciding whether to believe the Bible or not.
But no real faith should be based in fear of damnation. Can anyone truly and seriously suggest that an almighty God would have to resort to fear to attract followers? How is that any better than any of the many gods of Greek & Roman theology?
Liberator, I am open minded, and being open minded means being honest. Really honest. And in all honesty, I cannot fathom how God could have attributes that even human leaders know are faulty. Under the Newton model, God is even better and more majestic than is portrayed in the Bible, so to the degree I have abandoned the Bible, it's because I have more faith in God than the Bible says I should have. And if that's a sin that earns me eternal hell, well then, there's just nothing I can do about that. I am what I am.
It seems to me you are completely comfortable sealing off any consideration that the Bible might just be a work of man only. If so, to each his own.
And why is it referred to as a "Model"? Doesn't "model" imply an Unfinished Product? Or version of an "Original"?
"Model" is my own characterization of Newton's work and no one else's that I know of. Newton never uses that characterization. He merely gives a series of accounts of what his clients have related and his own contemplations of what it means and how it ties to what others have related in similar hypnotic state. I equate the term with "theory" as in a possible accurate description of reality. There is the Christian model (actually several of those for the various Christian beliefs), the Jewish model, the Islamic, Hindu and Buddest model and many other lesser known models.
In Newton's case, however, it is certainly incomplete as Newton himself writes he's only scratched the surface. But what he has revealed seems to me very authentic, not so much because it's corroborated with ancient writings (though reincarnation is a theory that does date back thousands of years, and even Paul certifies that as he seems to refute it in one of his letters you could probably quote -- "it's appointed for man once to die...") but because it corroborated with my own experience, observations and philosophical musings far more than Christian doctrine does. For example, under the Christian model, if I see a beggar on the street with no feet and twisted legs, as a Christian, I could only cringe at the suffering and be embarrassed, giving money I would think appropriate, lament the man's condition and offer a quick prayer that God would miraculously cure him (knowing in my physical mind that it just ain't gonna happen). But with the understanding Newton provides, I can instead look upon this man in awe, because before me I'll see a soul that freely and with more courage I could muster chose to live a whole life without legs because that soul was tough enough to want that kind of challenge in order to grow strong, which that soul WILL do. So in my heart, instead of lamenting him, I instead salute him knowing that he will make more progress in his life than I and nearly all others will in there's. So you tell me from that, Liberator, which model is more virtuous? The Bible says Jesus said that a man born blind was that way for the Glory of God. So tell me, Liberator, which of the two regards for a crippled man Glorifies God more? A show off miracle of curing blindness, or a soul that has freely chosen an extreme opportunity to spend an entire life badly crippled to actually grow and be more like God?
To me, there is no contest whatsoever. So if you sense my passion for the Newton model, perhaps I've done well in giving God MORE credit than even the Bible does.
I don't mean this disparagingly (and I know you won't take it that way as I know you are a good guy making an honest effort to hear me out which I absolutely DO appreciate) but you can rest in your bubble of mental security that the Bible is THE gateway to God if you want to, but for me, it's simply not good enough.
