• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

dr. dino's point of view

Status
Not open for further replies.

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
actually, only a few belonged to that group, some there is too little information of.



also yu need to learn to back up your words with credible sources, links etc. as i do not take your word for anything.

Between the two of us, how is it that the one who frequently links is called untrustworthy with his resources?

Even so, Athanasius[1][2] has been cited. He was called "the Father of Orthodoxy" while he was still alive.

Clement of Rome [1][2] is considered a Pope by the modern Roman Catholic Church. But even if you don't think he was a Pope, his epistle (linked earlier; I can pull it up again if need be) is pretty clearly orthodox in content.

But, of course, Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia for any of the fathers are just a google search away, and if you're feeling particularly feisty, you might consider reading some of their works. I think you'll see the people mentioned are pretty strictly orthodox.

sigh... this is still not proof they believed as you claim. come up with some independent credible sources which speak onthese issues or their own words , saying, ' believe...' until then you have no clue as to what they believed, you are just reading into their words the meaning you want.

That's the interpretation I put forth regarding a passage in which concern is expressed that the sun and moon might collide. What's your interpretation?
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Between the two of us, how is it that the one who frequently links is called untrustworthy with his resources?

by credible i mean don't use jesusneverexisted.com or atheistrus.com or whatever wingnut website is out there. present something from someone who knows what they are talking about.

now assyrian made some fine links but they only repeated the words in question but never showed the etymology to prove each word is equal in meaning. i did use the dictionary to show that they did not and o one has brought in oine word study to counter what the oxford said, they continued to post the latin and assume that the words are equal even though the oxford tlls us, specie is from the latin only. so no case has been proven from that side of the argument.

Even so, Athanasius[1][2] has been cited. He was called "the Father of Orthodoxy" while he was still alive.

so? that still doesn't prove he believed the sun revolved around the earth and other such beliefs. you are not proving your case by evidence but by inference and assumption.

Clement of Rome [1][2] is considered a Pope by the modern Roman Catholic Church. But even if you don't think he was a Pope, his epistle (linked earlier; I can pull it up again if need be) is pretty clearly orthodox in content.

so? i read the context and did not see any indication the claims made by some are so. i have asked repeatedly to produce such documents which prove the claims true?
i can splice together your words and say you beliee in creationism, does it mean it is true? no i need other evidence to prove that true.

But, of course, Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia for any of the fathers are just a google search away, and if you're feeling particularly feisty, you might consider reading some of their works. I think you'll see the people mentioned are pretty strictly orthodox

i have their works, i don't need to seek them out. give me the location where they state they believe what you claim and i can look it up.

That's the interpretation I put forth regarding a passage in which concern is expressed that the sun and moon might collide. What's your interpretation?

i haven't even thought about it and i doubt i could give you an answer of the top of my head. but remember, i said, i looked at the contexts and nothing was indicated that is what they believed and reminded me of all the modern descriptions still in use today.

i have not said they didn't believe what you calim, i said the evidence provided hasn't indicated what you claim.

there is a difference.
 
Upvote 0

SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle

Regular Member
Aug 13, 2006
523
9
Visit site
✟15,710.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
When some people who are against Hovind say that some of the things that he uses in his seminars are half truths and old findings. Not one person explained to me what those were. They just said he was and left it at that. What was he wrong about?
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
When some people who are against Hovind say that some of the things that he uses in his seminars are half truths and old findings. Not one person explained to me what those were. They just said he was and left it at that. What was he wrong about

it is hard to explain hovind and some of his buddies. i took a creation class and the professor used his seminars as the text.

part of his problem is that he uses ussher's dating or someone similar and we do not know the exact date of creation.

another problem is that he calls evolution a religion because it requires a huge amount of faith to accept that theory. it is not a religion but it isn't true either.

then you have to remember that evolutionists change the theory, there is talk about doing another change based upon maeve leakey's recent report and article on yahoo.

evolutionists like being in 'control' of their origin and the theory gives them that 'power' thus evolutionists can always say that critics do not understand the theory when in fact we really do---it doesn't exist nor work.

the constant changing of the theory denies any claim to truth. so to get back to hovind, he is just a little misinformed and his presentation needs work.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
When some people who are against Hovind say that some of the things that he uses in his seminars are half truths and old findings. Not one person explained to me what those were. They just said he was and left it at that. What was he wrong about?

Almost everything. That's why it can't be covered in a short post. It is easier if the questioner raises a specific point and we deal with the points one at a time.

A handy site that covers pretty well all the claims Hovind made and shows why they are wrong is here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

You might want to pick something out of that list and if you are still puzzled by the answer, bring it back for discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would you say that the sun and moon would collide? Seriously, I'd like to know whether this is a turn of phrase you would use.
Apparently yes. Archie said: "anyone cansay those words and we still do in the modern age." That 'we' must include archie. So yes he claims to saying things like "in the time of Hezekiah the moon also turned back along with the sun, that there might be no collision between the two elemental bodies".
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
archaeologist said:
Willtor said:
Even so, Athanasius[1][2] has been cited. He was called "the Father of Orthodoxy" while he was still alive.
so? that still doesn't prove he believed the sun revolved around the earth and other such beliefs. you are not proving your case by evidence but by inference and assumption.
Athanasius: Against the Heathen, Book I, I, 27
4. For if men are thus awestruck at the parts of Creation and think that they are gods, they might well be rebuked by the mutual dependence of those parts; which moreover makes known, and witnesses to, the Father of the Word, Who is the Lord and Maker of these parts also, by the unbroken law of their obedience to Him, as the divine law also says: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork." 5. But the proof of all this is not obscure, but is clear enough in all conscience to those the eyes of whose understanding are not wholly disabled. For if a man take the parts of Creation separately, and consider each by itself,—as for example the sun by itself alone, and the moon apart, and again earth and air, and heat and cold, and the essence of wet and of dry, separating them from their mutual conjunction,—he will certainly find that not one is sufficient for itself but all are in need of one another's assistance, and subsist by their mutual help. For the Sun is carried round along with, and is contained in, the whole heaven, and can never go beyond his own orbit, while the moon and other stars testify to the assistance given them by the Sun: while the earth again evidently does not yield her crops without rains, which in their turn would not descend to earth without the assistance of the clouds; but not even would the clouds ever appear of themselves and subsist, without the air. And the air is warmed by the upper air, but illuminated and made bright by the sun, not by itself. 6. And wells, again, and rivers will never exist without the earth; but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the centre of the universe.And the sea, and the great ocean that flows outside round the whole earth, is moved and borne by winds wherever the force of the winds dashes it. And the winds in their turn originate, not in themselves, but according to those who have written on the subject, in the air, from the burning heat and high temperature of the upper as compared with the lower air, and blow everywhere through the latter. 7. For as to the four elements of which the nature of bodies is composed, heat, that is, and cold, wet and dry, who is so perverted in his understanding as not to know that these things exist indeed in combination, but if separated and taken alone they tend to destroy even one another according to the prevailing power of the more abundant element? For heat is destroyed by cold if it be present in greater quantity, and cold again is put away by the power of heat, and what is dry, again, is moistened by wet, and the latter dried by the former.

Athanasius: Against the Heathen, Bk 1, Part III, 35
4. For who that sees the circle of heaven and the course of the sun and the moon, and the positions and movements of the other stars, as they take place in opposite and different directions, while yet in their difference all with one accord observe a consistent order, can resist the conclusion that these are not ordered by themselves, but have a maker distinct from themselves who orders them? or who that sees the sun rising by day and the moon shining by night, and waning and waxing without variation exactly according to the same number of days, and some of the stars running their courses and with orbits various and manifold, while others move without wandering, can fail to perceive that they certainly have a creator to guide them?

Athanasius: Against the Heathen, Bk 1, Part III, 44
For by a nod and by the power of the Divine Word of the Father that governs and presides over all, the heaven revolves, the stars move, the sun shines, the moon goes her circuit, and the air receives the sun's light and the aether his heat, and the winds blow: the mountains are reared on high, the sea is rough with waves, and the living things in it grow the earth abides fixed, and bears fruit, and man is formed and lives and dies again.


Do people today talk about 'the circle of heaven' or think that it and 'the course of the sun' and movement of the stars is because God ordered them, or because God made the earth rotate? Do people today think the sun rises because it is carried around its orbit by the heavens? Do people think the sun rises because God is guiding it? When people today see the stars moving across the night sky, do they think the stars are in orbit and are being guided by God? Do people today think the earth is supported on the realm of the waters and bound fast at the center of the universe?
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Do people today talk about 'the circle of heaven' or think that it and 'the course of the sun' and movement of the stars is because God ordered them, or because God made the earth rotate

why keep beating the same tune--find some independent proof, just because you want them to believe something the way you want it does it meanthey do.

there is nothing there that states they believe it, you are trying to convince someone who is only asking for te correct proof. so far you have done what anyone could do and this isn't proof.

Do people think the sun rises because God is guiding it? When people today see the stars moving across the night sky, do they think the stars are in orbit and are being guided by God?

asking these type of questions is not providing proof but trying to win a point through physically beating someone. this isn't proof.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
why keep beating the same tune--find some independent proof, just because you want them to believe something the way you want it does it meanthey do.

there is nothing there that states they believe it, you are trying to convince someone who is only asking for te correct proof. so far you have done what anyone could do and this isn't proof.

So, is it your claim that people like Athanasius wrote these things although they did not believe them?

They wrote these things to encourage people to believe in God. They offered them as evidence of God's existence, power, glory and sovereignty.

Yet you claim that they themselves did not believe what they wrote?

Isn't that tantamount to accusing them of lying to win converts?
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟27,398.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Archie, it's called 'debate'.
Actually, we are the ones debating not Arche.

You, Willtor, Assyrian, I and others have produced ample evidence that the Church Fathers were geocentrists. Arche argues by sticking his fingers in his ears, saying "Naaah naaah naaah naaah, can't hear you!"

Given the mass of vocabulary used, and my points about the silence regarding Ptolemy, the ball is clearly in Arche's court. Given that the geocentric position is explicitly espoused in Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and others (and I do not have to provide "citations for this,; it is common knowledge), the only rational explanation of those statements (like the ones Assyrian provided a few posts back, and the ones from Willtor above) is that the authors were geocentrists.

The only possible way out would be for him to find a Church Father
who explicitly denied geocentrism.

Which I think he knows he cannot do.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
by credible i mean don't use jesusneverexisted.com or atheistrus.com or whatever wingnut website is out there. present something from someone who knows what they are talking about.

I haven't cited either of those as sources. I don't think I've even ever been to those websites. Where is this argument coming from?

now assyrian made some fine links but they only repeated the words in question but never showed the etymology to prove each word is equal in meaning. i did use the dictionary to show that they did not and o one has brought in oine word study to counter what the oxford said, they continued to post the latin and assume that the words are equal even though the oxford tlls us, specie is from the latin only. so no case has been proven from that side of the argument.

Given the tools we have at our disposal it looks like many of the Church fathers thought that the world was flat and/or thought the sun and moon orbited the earth.

so? that still doesn't prove he believed the sun revolved around the earth and other such beliefs. you are not proving your case by evidence but by inference and assumption.

so? i read the context and did not see any indication the claims made by some are so. i have asked repeatedly to produce such documents which prove the claims true?
i can splice together your words and say you beliee in creationism, does it mean it is true? no i need other evidence to prove that true.

If you recall, in context, I wasn't arguing their cosmology, but their orthodoxy. These were orthodox, catholic fathers. You said they weren't and that we couldn't know for sure. But we actually know quite a lot about them.

i have their works, i don't need to seek them out. give me the location where they state they believe what you claim and i can look it up.

i haven't even thought about it and i doubt i could give you an answer of the top of my head. but remember, i said, i looked at the contexts and nothing was indicated that is what they believed and reminded me of all the modern descriptions still in use today.

i have not said they didn't believe what you calim, i said the evidence provided hasn't indicated what you claim.

there is a difference.

I see. I guess our experiences are just different, then. I've never heard anyone who had a good sense as to the structure of our solar system suggest (even figuratively) that the sun and the moon might collide; or use it in a context of reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I haven't cited either of those as sources. I don't think I've even ever been to those websites. Where is this argument coming from?

do you people understand the concept of examples?

Given the tools we have at our disposal it looks like many of the Church fathers thought that the world was flat and/or thought the sun and moon orbited the earth

what tools? you haven't displayed or used any.

You said they weren't and that we couldn't know for sure. But we actually know quite a lot about them.

i said there were some we know little about, stop mis-representing what is said.

I guess our experiences are just different, then

just because you haven't heard does itmean it never happens.

You, Willtor, Assyrian, I and others have produced ample evidence that the Church Fathers were geocentrists. Arche argues by sticking his fingers in his ears, saying "Naaah naaah naaah naaah, can't hear you!"

this is typical of one who cannot produce proof for their argument; attack the other poster.

So, is it your claim that people like Athanasius wrote these things although they did not believe them

it is your assumptions that are throwing you off. my claim has always been that your side has not produced the correct proof and i looked at the context, your argument needs better proof. it is that simple.

all i have seen so far is the old 'take my word fo rit' argument.
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟27,398.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
this is typical of one who cannot produce proof for their argument; attack the other poster.
I have provided proof, Arche. You have failed to provide any rational answer.

My argument from silence is easily refuted: provide a single instance of a Church Father arguing against Ptolemy's geocentric system in the Almagest.

Find one; I dare you.

No, I double-dog dare you.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
do you people understand the concept of examples?

I guess not. Could you explain it to me?

what tools? you haven't displayed or used any.

Our minds and translations of their writings. The frameworks look pretty sound to me. If you think they aren't, you're free to posit alternative interpretations.

i said there were some we know little about, stop mis-representing what is said.

just because you haven't heard does itmean it never happens.

Clearly.

You know, you could help this process along by offering something constructive to the discussion.

it is your assumptions that are throwing you off. my claim has always been that your side has not produced the correct proof and i looked at the context, your argument needs better proof. it is that simple.

all i have seen so far is the old 'take my word fo rit' argument.

No, you have also heard invitations to reason.

In that context, you won't hear many professions of "I believe" outside their common applications in the Creeds (Father, Son, Spirit, Church) from the fathers. It might be good intellectual exercise to consider why this is so (though, this is another topic).
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
it is your assumptions that are throwing you off.

I was not making an assumption. There were a lot of question marks in my post. Including one at the end of the section you quoted.

I am asking you if this is your assumption:

that Athanasius, Hippolytus and others quoted are using geocentric vocabulary even though they do not believe in geocentrism.


If that is the case, please note the conditional, I think it fair to ask why they would do such a thing.


my claim has always been that your side has not produced the correct proof and i looked at the context, your argument needs better proof. it is that simple.

No, it is not that simple. In human communication we normally take for granted that people say what they mean and mean what they say unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Without that axiom, communication would be impossible.

So, it is not those who accept that the authors mean exactly what they say that must corroborate their belief. That is a given unless and until we have a reason to think otherwise.

It is you who is suggesting we think otherwise.

So it is you who needs to provide a reason for us to think otherwise.

Time for you to provide some evidence, or at least logic, to support your suggestion that we suspect the ancient authors of hiding the true extent of their knowledge about the celestial order.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, is it your claim that people like Athanasius wrote these things although they did not believe them?

They wrote these things to encourage people to believe in God. They offered them as evidence of God's existence, power, glory and sovereignty.

Yet you claim that they themselves did not believe what they wrote?

Isn't that tantamount to accusing them of lying to win converts?
Apparently Athenasius was lying just like Jerome. Which raises a quesion of why archie believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, if Athanasius was lying about God creating a geocentric universe to get converts, you can't really trust anything he says. The Nicene creed will probably have to go too. The council would probably have gone very differently if people had realised how dishonest and untrustworthy Athanasius was.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
so you are basing your position on an assumption then? surely there are other writers who have researched this and have evidence you need.

the ball is still in your court

What sort of evidence would anybody have that we haven't presented?

By this sort of reasoning, perhaps the architects of the Nicene Creed didn't think that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilot because they simply said he was but never said "We believe" before it.
 
Upvote 0

Rudolph Hucker

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,540
332
Canberra ACT
✟26,803.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.