See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

Learn more about Lingua Translation  »

For a Cleric From Saudi Arabia, Earth Does Not Spin. For Others, the Sun Rotates Around Earth

Saudi cleric Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari says the Earth is stationary and doesn't rotate around the sun. Photo source: screenshot of Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV

Saudi cleric Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari says in a video on YouTube that the Earth is stationary and doesn't rotate around the sun. Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV picked on the story after it went viral on social media, airing it to viewers around the world. Photo source: Screenshot of the video from Al Arabiya TV

There is no way the Earth can rotate on itself, says Saudi cleric Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari, who insists our planet is stationary. His explanation comes in a video recording, in what appears to be from a lecture, where he says if the Earth really rotated, how could anyone ever reach China in a plane.

His exact words are:

We have a brain as Muslims. First of all, where are we? If we go to Sharjah Airport and want to go to China Airport, in an airplane .. is this clear? I want you to focus with me .. This is the Earth [holding an object in his hand], if you claim that it rotates, if we leave Sharjah Airport on an international flight to the China Airport, and the Earth is rotating, right? So if the plane stops in the sky, won't China come to it? Right or wrong? If it rotates, will China come or not? If the Earth rotated like this, and the airplane is flying, you will never reach China, because China is rotating and you are rotating. How will you ever reach China?

On YouTube, Ahmed Zayed shares the video here:

And Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV, which ran the story after it went viral on social media, has translated the video here (check it out for English subtitles).

On Twitter, Saudis battled it out on whether the Earth rotates around itself or the sun, under the hashtag #داعية_ينفي_دوران_الأرض, which translates to #cleric_rejects_Earth_rotation.

But the debate went further, with many claiming that the Sun even rotated around the stationary Earth.

From Saudi Arabia, Naifco digs up and shares on Twitter this fatwa (religious edict), which says the Earth is also stationary, and the sun rotates around it. This tweet has been shared more than 500 times so far:

According to the fatwa, [by the Fatwa Permanent General Secretariat in Saudi Arabia], which comes in response to a question poised by a teacher, it is the Sun which rotates around the Earth, and not the other way around:

Question 3: In a science class I teach: The Earth rotates around the Sun and since I have head from Sheikh Abu Bakr Al Jazaeri that the sun is the one which rotates around the Earth, those who teach this subject should fear Allah. This is a danger to his faith as this matter makes him an apostate. I explained this to my students after teaching the class. Is this correct or am I wrong in this? Please let me know, may Allah reward you.

Answer 3: What Sheikh Abu Bakr has said is correct. The Earth is stationary and it is the Sun that rotates around it.

As a result of sharing this fatwa, this microblogger has come under an attack by readers, who hurled insults at him for poking fun at religion, when all he did was tweet the fatwa which spells out the Saudi theology's rejection of the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun.

From Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Musfer ben Ali reminds his 8.5K followers:

For your information, the official Sharia-compliant opinion of Saudi Arabia is that the Earth does not spin. This man just repeated what he was taught

Despite this, Akram Wadidi is surprised that there are people on Twitter defending the cleric's statement:

What is strange is that there are people defending the cleric who said that Earth is stationary and doesn't rotate. Not one or two … a lot of people

And from Dubai, Hazza Al Marri remarks to his 1,200 followers:

Earth is stationary and does not rotate around the Sun and whoever says anything other than this is “a rational man, no one pays attention to”!!

Rest in peace Galileo Galilei — the Italian astronomer found “vehemently suspect of heresy” and forced to recant, who spent the last nine years of his life until his death in 1642 under house arrest for championing heliocentrism.

  • HansSuter

    I wonder what his expensive watch shows.

  • Beno

    He is correct, the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it.
    Were it not so, we would be unable to live due to the constant movement.
    The balance system in our heads (the ears and balance fluids and cilia) would be completely useless.
    Trust your own instincts, not the elites. They’re rolling on the floor laughing at your gullibility.

    • Orixa

      My instincts say that I wish I could depart from planet earth and leave all these imbeciles behind. Sick of the idiots of the earth and their stupid beliefs in some Man invented God, to make sure they stay stupid and alienated so that they can step on them, make them believe anything they want and do the exact opposite of what they preach.

    • Donald Currie

      Beno you are correct that the Earth is stationary because everyone knows that the Earth is flat! If it was spinning all the trees and people would fly off of it. Copernicus was wrong

      • tripsterOntario

        Copernicus had quantifiable data which he examined and made a thesis. Show me yours! The celestial body we live on is neither flat, nor round. Until we get eyes above the skies who aren’t paid and threatened to keep their mouths shut, we will never really know the facts. If we are spinning as fast as they say, why when we look up stars are little beautiful dots of light and not streaking lines in the sky? If the earth does not spin, how do you explain gravity and our (also moving) layers of spheres…troposphere, ionosphere, etc. Nothing in life is stationary, and nothing in life is flat. Everything has vibration, everything has dimensions….EVERYTHING!

        • nworder

          The earth is a round sphere – it is obvious to anyone with a single brain cell.
          However it does not move as the Bible says . The geocentrism system is accepted as working mathematically .
          You are a disinformation troll

    • Niels Henriksen

      No, he is not – this is sheer nonsense!

      No, it would not – we are able to walk around in a moving train or plane without
      any problems at all ( as we were in our own living rooms ).

      What can be a problem in certain cases is a accelerations ( change of speed and direction – for instance when the train breaks or the plane takes off etc.), but most of the time these
      effects are too small for us to notice, even we are living on a spinning top that is revolving almost in a circle around the Sun – or we are so used to them, that we able to ignore them.

      • nworder

        We can only move around on a train or plane easily once we reach the same momentum – and direction – BUT if the train slows down or the plane accelerates
        we have a turbulent human.
        So if everything on the earth was stationery ie the air and seas then we may not notice a spinning earth. But this is not the case – the seas currents and the airs weather patterns are in constant motion and turbulence.

        The gulf stream will be doing 1000 mph west to east as it leaves the gulf
        A few weeks later this stream of massive kinetic energy has to slow to say 500 mph in around two weeks as it approaches Europe or it would flood Europe with a tsunami that would make the Indonesian one look like a small stream.

        So the question is – where did the kinetic momentum of a massive body of water
        disappear to – we dont see massive turbulence on the coasts of Europe that would justify this.

  • Pingback: For a Cleric from Saudi Arabia, Earth Does not Spin. For Others, the Sun Rotates Around Earth! | ~~Defender of Faith~Guardian of Truth~~()

  • nworder

    The bible says that the earth cannot be moved – it is still. There are many passages on this.

    Hubble , Hoyle and Einstein said that the geocentric equations work just as well as heliocentric and either system is proved by mathematics of relativity – but which one is true ? Hubble said he would choose heliocentric because he did not want to let the divine foot in the door.

    The geocentric theory is that the whole universe is revolving around the earth in a matrix including the sun and the other planets – the maths agree this position is possible. As did pre Galileo astronomers and many post Galileo.

    The michelson and morley types of experiments never managed to prove the earth is moving.

    Google ” Galileo and the church was right “. Mr Sugenis and a few astronomers prove this
    with their observations .

    I was a sceptic till I read the evidence. As a bible believer this confirms the bible.

    The air currents and seas are too stable for the earth to be moving so fast at the equator and so slowly at the poles.
    The gulf stream would be impossible to slow by hundreds of miles per hour in weeks as it moves north.

    • Scott

      It can be very difficult to accept that religious figures whom you respect and admire have made a mistake, but everyone makes errors of judgment. The priests who claim knowledge of the earth’s motion know a lot about holy books, but they know almost nothing about physics or engineering. They mean well and they lead as best they can, but they are guilty of assuming that they know more than they do.

      As an engineering student with a knowledge of orbital mechanics and colleagues who are practicing aerospace engineers, I can tell you that if the earth was not spinning, much of our technology simply would not work. This is because it is designed to work ONLY IF the earth spins. We would have no satellite communications, no GPS systems, no international space station. Satellites would fly off into space or crash, instead of entering their proper orbits. Planes that attempted to fly long distances would become lost. Weather forecasting would be consistently wrong all the time. Even long-range artillery rounds would miss their targets. The math that models and controls these things would fail disastrously if the earth wasn’t spinning.

      However the GPS in my phone works fine, because GPS satellites go up and stay up. Hurricanes spin counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. When I fly nonstop to Asia it takes 25 hours to make the westward trip but only 23 hours to make the eastward return. The earth is spinning.

      • nworder

        Yes but these effects could also come from a universe spinning at incredible speed around the earth – best to google the evidence for a stationery earth and then
        see if you can refute it. I began wondering if these astronomers said the they cant tell due to relativity surely they would be taking what you have stated into account

        • Scott

          You know, I was not aware that anyone had attempted to collect proofs of such a thing. It’s the internet, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I did a Google search and checked the top 3 web sites offering proofs of a stationary earth, but all of them are either citing scripture or making basic errors of physics.

          For the purpose of discussion, can you suggest a web site that you consider credible?

          • nworder

            Well Sugenis is a catholic but dont let it stop you from seeing facts.

            Hubble Einstein or Hoyle were not bible students but said that geocentrism is possible ie the world is stationery and the whole universe could move around it in accordance with the accepted equations.

          • Scott

            You’re talking about the concept of the privileged observer? Nice point, most people can’t wrap their heads around that.

            You’re absolutely correct that depending on where you define your point of reference, you can construct a mathematical that spins the earth around the sun or a set of equations that spins the sun around the earth. As you put it, the equations accommodate either situation equally. However, those models would spit out different results if you used them to calculate, say, the correct path for a GPS satellite. We use the model that assumes a spinning earth, and it works. If the model that assumes a stationary earth was correct, then all of our GPS satellites should be lost in space or crashed and destroyed.

          • nworder

            The GPS satellites have to be at a certain height from the earth – the balancing point – am I right .
            Plus astronomers who are geocentric would not make such a simple mistake and must have covered the GPS problem.

            If the earth was spinning and everything with it including the air then there should be no difference in flight times since the air is the medium that the plane resides in.

            But they have just found massive suns spinning around smaller objects.

            However it is not about the sun spinning around the earth but the whole universe spinning in a matrix around the earth with the earth being stationery .

          • Scott

            Ok, you have a whole collection of interesting ideas there. Let me see if I can wrap my head around them. I may need a couple days to get familiar with them all.

            To answer your question, no. Satellites are at all different heights, and a given satellite’s height above the earth varies as it moves. Most are in elliptical orbits, so they’re higher at one end of the ellipse than at the other.

            I couldn’t find any sources for massive suns spinning around smaller objects or the universe being imbedded in a matrix. But basically you’re arguing that Newton’s theory of gravity is fundamentally wrong. If his theory is so far off base, why does it work? If his equations are the wrong equations, who has better ones?

          • nworder

            Geosynchronous satellites which orbit Earth 35,900 km (22,300 miles) above the ground, offer the best locations because the high orbit allows satellites orbital speed to match the rotation speed of Earth and remain essentially stable over the same spot.

            Alexandra Kravtsova — 2004

            So this does not back up your elliptical assertion.

            I presume Einstein , Hubble and Hoyle knew about gravity when they stated that geocentrism is a viable theory.

          • nworder

            From wiki :-

            “A geostationary orbit can only be achieved at an altitude very close to 35,786 km (22,236 mi), and directly above the Equator. This equates to an orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s (1.91 mi/s) or an orbital period of 1,436 minutes, which equates to almost exactly one sidereal day or 23.934461223 hours. This ensures that the satellite will match the Earth’s rotational period and has a stationary footprint on the ground. All geostationary satellites have to be located on this ring.

            A combination of lunar gravity, solar gravity, and the flattening of the Earth at its poles causes a precession motion of the orbital plane of any geostationary object, with an orbital period of about 53 years and an initial inclination gradient of about 0.85 degrees per year, achieving a maximum inclination of 15 degrees after 26.5 years. To correct for this orbital perturbation, regular orbital station keeping manoeuvres are necessary, amounting to a delta-v of approximately 50 m/s per year.”

            So if geocentrism is the system then the geo satellite must be kept in position by a balancing force of the spinning universe.

            But I am sure Sugenis gets this correct or he would have been shot down in flames.

            On his site you can see both the geo and helio models in an animation.

            There are lots of sites on this but he has his own one with another astronomer who co wrote his book.

          • Scott

            Aha, I see the point of confusion. You are referring to a geostationary orbit. A geostationary orbit is one type of orbit, and yes, it is a circle. However it is far, far, far from being the only kind of orbit.

            Medium earth orbits are also circular, although they are not stationary over a point on the earth’s surface and they are a lot lower down towards the surface. There’s also low earth orbit (LEO), which is elliptical and used a lot, because it’s cheap (lower orbit = less fuel to get there). The US GPS system uses LEO. There’s also geosynchronous orbit, a name which is often used interchangeably with geostationary orbits but which refers to a different kind of orbit, one that is slightly elliptical. There are also Molniya orbits, highly elliptical orbits that the Russians use because geosync and geostationary tend to hover over the equator while Molniya spends a lot of time over Russia. If you’re interested in learning more about orbits, Wiki’s got some great introductory material, and the NASA web site has some good stuff that’s arranged in a more teaching style that’s pretty accessible and won’t throw obscure advanced mathematics at you.

            While I’m geeking on orbits, you may find it interesting to know that all of the moons and all of the cyclical comets in the solar system are also in elliptical orbits, although the orbits of the moons are very nearly (although not quite!) circular.

            Every orbit has a number called its *orbital eccentricity* that describes its shape. A circular orbit has an e of zero, while elliptical orbits have an e between zero and one. An orbit of one or more isn’t a looping orbit at all, but represents escape velocity away into space. Calculating e is a humongous pain in the butt that requires several years training in advanced calculus and physics and a couple of pages of equations; I actually just learned how to do it myself a couple weeks ago (it usually takes me several tries; I’m still getting comfortable with the math). I’m one of the very few people I know who is enough of a colossal geek to think that sort of thing is fun. My wife tells me that I am very lucky that she thinks nerdy is sexy. :D

          • Scott

            I found his web site, but it seems to be just a sales portal, with just very basic info about his beliefs. However, I did come across some links to some fairly lengthy stuff he put on youtube. I’ll take a look at it, but it might take me a couple days to get through it because the early part of the week is crazy busy for me.

            You seem to have a lot of respect for him and some of the things mentioned on his site are things I don’t see too often, so let me ask a couple questions just to see where you’re coming from, what your broader perspective is. Do you believe the universe an the earth is very old (several billion years), very young (less than 10,000 years) or somewhere in between? Do you believe that life on the earth is the result of special creation, intelligent design, guided evolution, random evolution, or something else?

            Sungenis seems to be coming from a young-earth creationist perspective, and most of the young-earth creationists that I’ve read dispute the entire disciplines of anthropology, astronomy, biogeography, biology, engineering, geology, hydrology, medicine, meteorology, and physics, along with various scientific processes like evolutionary theory, radio-carbon dating, plate tectonic theory, cancer treatment, and a bunch of other stuff. Some of them also believe there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists to conceal various problems with their disciplines.

            Is that generally where you’re coming from, or would you describe yourself differently? I want to get an understanding of your take on things.

          • nworder

            I will try to find the info – but a few weeks ago astronomers said they found an enormous star orbiting a smaller planet – kind of going against accepted theory of mass .

            The speed of light :-
            “The most powerful evolutionist “age argument” for most thinking persons has been that based on the measured speed of light and the time it would take light to travel from

            In the entire history of scientific investigation there have been less than a hundred published determinations (each made by averaging a number of separate measurements) of the speed of light.

            The first determination was reported by the Danish astronomer Roemer in 1675, and the second followed some fifty years later in 1728 and was made by the English astronomer Bradley.
            No more determinations were made until the mid-1800s, and from that time to the present, determinations of the speed of light have occurred fairly frequently.
            Although published measurements of the speed of light that have not been previously noted by researchers occasionally do turn up, these are almost all from the modern era.
            The pre-1940 data are thought by most experts to be complete. This point is vital, since it means that the examination made by Setterfield into the provocative question of light-speed decay is based upon all the evidence there is.

            Barry Setterfield examined these data, and—much to his amazement and in spite of everything he had learned from his professors and textbooks—the figures showed a clear and distinct pattern of decay with the passage of time. The speed of light has not been constant; it was faster in the past.

            Setterfield was astonished. Had anyone in the scientific community ever noticed this decay trend? He found the answer to be in the affirmative. There have been a number of scientists in the past who saw the trend and concluded that light must be slowing down. Articles to this effect have appeared in the scientific literature over the years. Nevertheless, the evolutionary scientific establishment has assumed the constancy of the speed of light in spite of the actual physical data.”

          • nworder

            Not sure if this has been phrased correctly :-

            ““The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis”, says Dr. Shaban in his book, The Verses of Deus(page 77). The reason for that is obvious:

            If the Earth does not rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours, but if it does revolve around the sun, then one side would always be in daylight, while the other half would experience continual night. It would be similar to what we see of the moon, as it revolves around Earth.”

            Eg the moon must be rotating or we would not only see one side.

            So if the earth is rotating and also going round the sun we should have the same dark side of the earth all the time .

          • nworder

            Why satellites stay up ? The geo and helio gravitational effects are the same .

            “Answer: The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile.
            According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.

            The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the helio-centric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands. It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.”

          • nworder

            Failed heliocentric experiments :-

            (a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 – I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

            (b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle. [emphasis BiblicalScholarship.net]

            (c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

            All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

        • Scott

          Oh! I also should not neglect to address your question, as it’s a very good question, and a lot of people might be concerned about such a theory.

          If objects in the universe were spinning at incredible speed around the earth, and yet appearing to maintain their position relative to each other, then things that are further away must be spinning faster — as if the earth were at the center of a giant merry-go-round. Objects outside the solar system would have to be completing an orbit several light-years in length every day. To do that, they’d need to be moving substantially faster than the speed of light.

          There are a variety of objections to the idea that most of the universe is moving at several thousand times the speed of light, but the most obvious one is that any star moving in a circular orbit about the earth at faster than the speed of light would appear to be a brilliant ring-shaped smear in the sky, rather than a dot of light. There are no smears, thus there are no superliminal orbiting stars.

          • nworder

            But how would Hubble Hoyle Einstein and a host of current astronomers make this ” mistake” on the speed of light.
            Besides we now know that the speed of light is not constant and also that it is slowing on a steep curve since this speed has been measured .

            If a smear of light is relative then it – if your theory is correct – would be seen even if the earth spinning is the right theory.
            Ie from a spinning earth we would see the stars as smears of light since
            the speed is relative to both geo and helio models.

          • Scott

            Sorry, I don’t follow. What mistake have they made about the speed of light?

          • nworder

            Well the speed of light has been measured and is slowing down on a steep hockey stick curve. In other words it slowed much faster in the past. You can google the experiments.

            You said the outer parts of the universe if moving in 24 hours around the earth would become light or would have to move too fast but why would hubble and hoyle miss this if they said a geocentric position is possible.

            The main objection is the one you mentioned ie the universe would have to go incredibly fast especially at the outer limits – so this is where the speed of light comes into it – ie how could it go faster than the speed of light.

            If the earth is doing 1000 mph from west to east and zero miles per hour at the poles then there would be enormous turbulence in the seas and air as they traversed the latitudes as in the gulf stream example that I posted. We have turbulence but not of the magnitude of the gulf stream slowing from west to east by about 500 miles per hour around the shores of europe.

          • Scott

            I have searched, but have been unable to find any commonly accepted physics that the speed of light is slowing down. For that matter I couldn’t find accounts of massive bodies orbiting less massive bodies or the universe being in a matrix. I did find Sugenis, but mostly web pages about him rather than anything in his own words. Your google skills appear to be much greater than my own. Perhaps you could provide some links?

            The weather thing is interesting, but for the moment let’s stick with the speed of light thing. I’d suggest that Hubble, Einstein, etc *didn’t* miss it. It’s a basic issue of distance and time. If you believe that Rho Cassiopeia is spinning around the earth, then you believe that Rho Cassiopeia (and its entire galaxy for that mattery) is moving at 220 billion times the speed of light, despite the fact that there is no force in the universe capable of accelerating it in a circle at that rate. Remember, objects tend to travel in a straight line unless a force is acting on them, so if the star and its galaxy are circling us at that rate, then an unimaginably vast force is constantly yanking them closer. How could this be?

          • Scott

            By the way, nworder, this is really interesting stuff you’re bringing up. As an engineering student, I love to think about problems like this. Thanks for having this conversation with me!

          • Scott

            Let me clarify about the smear — it’s not the same at all under either model. Take Rho Cassiopeia for example, a star that’s about 4,000 light years distant from the earth. If Rho Cassiopeia spins around the earth, it travels 25,132 light-years every 24 hours, about 7 light-years per second, which is about 220 billion times faster than the speed of light. An earth spinning at even a few thousand miles per hour would not cause the stars to blur, but stars moving at 220 billion times the speed of light would do so. Rho Cassiopeia would be crashing through its own photons like a supersonic jet busting through its own sound waves.

            Plus, you know, stuff doesn’t go faster than light. Or would you disagree with that statement?

          • nworder

            Yes there are a lot of astronomers who would disagree and are saying the speed of light was not a constant and was much faster in the past.
            They have slowed and sped up the speed of light recently.

            The distances of 4000 light years are impossible to measure and comprehend. The red shift is being debunked somewhat.
            So my suspicion is that star distances are grossly exaggerated to fit the big bang paradigm which many scientists say is a myth.

            But you are taking an individual star and saying it has to move at 220 billion times the speed of light – but where is your reference point if the universe is part of a matrix as some astronomers say.

            We know about point zero zero zero of one % about the universe but think we know it all.

      • Muhammed Sabir

        the religiouse stuff he spouts is non-sense…..its not in the quran…otherwise the muslim population would be non-existant(since its obviously wrong)

    • tripsterOntario

      The bible also says things like the universe revolves around us…pretty conceived if you ask me! If the earth is flat and does not spin, we would have no gravity, no atmosphere, ionosphere, troposphere, and the rest! Religion ruled the lands until more and more questioned the passages, and started using common sense, science, and math to realise what is going on. Religion lost it’s grip on humans, so a new control was needed….governments are born. Might be one reason why the Vatican is so careful with their archives…If we knew the truth as a whole, there would be no way of controlling us. So, they keep everyone so busy with everyday crap, we have no time to feel or question things.
      I’m now curious….Do you believe Jesus was magical and could walk on water? Moses being able to part the sea just long enough to make his move? and that the one who created us all in his, her, it’s image could be so hateful and vengeful we are limited to little less than 100 years? or to be able to banish us from a perfect garden all because someone was hungry and ate an apple? What does that say about the apple? Is that why they are red?

      See? it’s easy, wake up and start questioning things. Think long and hard about the bibles and what they all say. I’M NOT AN ATHIEST, BUT I ALSO DON’T BELIEVE IN HEAVEN OR HELL.

      • nworder

        Geocentrism means the the universe revolves around the earth. This is nothing to do with a flat earth which is psyop fantasy . Everyone knows the earth is a sphere -even in the ancient distant past

        Hubble and Einstein said geocentrism could be the system we live in since due to relativity it is impossible to tell . All the equations of the planets and stars have the same outcomes whether the universe and sun and planets spin around the earth or the earth spins and the universe is still.

        But Hubble and most scientists chose heliocentrism .

        If you study the debates around geo and helio you will see that no one can prove helio. google ” the church was right Galileo was wrong ” for 100, 000
        hits.
        The flat earthers are intel who know that geocentrism is gaining ground and have hijacked the geocentrisms proofs into the flat earth crap to confuse all truth seekers and label them as “flat earthers ” on any subject .

        Yes since the universe was created through Jesus He could walk on water.
        Yes Moses parted the Red Sea – the chariot wheels can be seen on youtube
        covered in barnacles but also the golden chariot wheels. The bible had the wrong route since the writers did not believe the story either.
        The mountain that Moses went up is in Saudi Arabia and is blacked at the top
        “Most Holy Family Monastery ” has an excellent video of the Hebrews journey.

        God gave us eternity to live in but either in Heaven or Hell.
        It was not an apple necessarily but the fruit had an effect on your mind – trying to know good from evil – it was forbidden
        Try to imagine you have a teenager who you tell over and over not to go somewhere in town – he agrees – then when you come home you find out he is in that very place – so are you going to be angry or not.

        None of us can understand God’s holiness to the full extent – but if you study and find out he exists then it would be crazy to oppose His will .

        God is merciful and kind but He also is a God of wrath for the wicked .

        Proof of Hell – google Dr Rawlings – a heart surgeon who brings people back from clinical death – he was an atheist – until he had some nightmare experiences when he started interviewing his patients when they came back to life .

  • Frank_Truth

    Give this guy a nuclear arsenal. It is only fair. If the US has one one, every country should be allowed to have one.

  • Pingback: サウジアラビアの聖職者、天動説を主張 | CuriousAbout()

  • Pingback: Kirche heute, 20.Februar 2015 | Christliche Leidkultur()

  • Rose

    The answer is that the atmosphere as well as people are all held down by gravity. The atmosphere is not rotating. Just like when you are on an airplane with no turbulence you start to not notice you are moving. But only on a grander scale, because the Earth is so much bigger than a plane! Also if the earth were flat and stationary like some people here are saying, then it would mean all of Nasa and Russia’s space programs too are a hoax. That would mean all astronauts from the beginning are keeping this huge secret. And everyone who becomes an astronaut is going to learn the hoax and keep the secret too. What is the likelyhood of all those people keeping quiet?

Our work building bridges across cultures, languages and perspectives is more urgent than ever before.

Learn more about Global Voices »

Donate now

Close