Search results

I say in all good-nature: that statement is highly debatable.

To my mind, the only thing more "satanic" than unjust judgment, and false accusations; is to misapply scripture to support unjust judgment and false accusation. Judgment is not to be taken lightly, and passed without consideration with the utmost gravity. A lot of people equate "satanic" with...

The only significance of the physical is as a metaphor. If I am communicating abstract ideas to you, and I hold up a physical object and say "It's like this physical object": once you grasp the idea conveyed by the physical, the physical is now irrelevant: I have communicated to you that...

In the beginning. We look at that and you may say "Literally" and I say "Okay, but I perceive that literality as irrelevant" In the beginning: Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. So, in the beginning I see Christ. Let there be light...

What I mean is I believe the literal is irrelevant but to point to the spiritual. Seeing Jesus literally give sight to the literal blind is a sign not intended to cause the seer to say "He can heal the carnal eyes" but to the spiritual seer "His teachings open the spiritual eyes; this carnal...

I always feel the need to say: bear in mind, I'm not saying "None of the bible ever literally happened" but I'm saying, the literal is merely intended as a form of literal metaphor; a "picture book" of earthly shadows conveying spiritual images. Also, that there is no possible way to know the...

For me, literalisms ended long ago. That's one way to translate the verse. It's not difficult to imagine a star-shaped earth riding on the back of a unicorn. Ability to "envision" doesn't equate to truth.

I believe Genesis is conveying a spiritual creation; whether or not it is literal is irrelevant. The carnal/earthly things are only of interest to the carnal/earthly-minded. To the spiritually-minded, they are irrelevant. Your son had the advantage of knowing for fact the lights were...

I agree with that verse you cite.

The same way I'm concerned with the ability of Jesus to spiritually heal the spiritually blind spiritual eyes, and not concerned with the ability to carnally heal carnal blindness. I am not concerned with carnal signs; I am concerned with the spiritual thing which the carnal points. Much like I...

As I said earlier, helio/geocentricism is an entirely different proposition. In all honesty, I cannot determine if the earth is moving around something, or, if everything else is moving around the earth, in any meaningful way due to a relativistic frame of reference. Not enough information to...

Well, you're pretty much saying, "Let's not talk about the big thing that refutes the notion; let's talk about the little things that don't refute it." Like I said before, I have no proverbial dog in this proverbial fight. I don't know for certain what shape the earth is, and to me it doesn't...

Nope. But I've seen the sunset, and know for fact I can't bring the sun back into view even with a telescope.

Trust.

I've eyewitnessed the sun disappear below the horizon. That's all I need to seriously doubt "flat earth" propositions. I can see craters on the moon, and the rings of Saturn with a telescope, and you're wanting me to believe I can't view the sun at midnight? The only reasonable conclusion is...

Oh I've seen that video and myriad like it. But the truth is that, just because I watch a video with an anonymous person making a proposition; doesn't make it true. I have a telescope. I view planets all of the time. One thing I know: if the sun has gone down, it is no longer viewable through a...

Yes, I know; but that doesn't explain a sunset, or, the object remaining a continuous size until it slowly descends below a horizon. That model above would mean the sun is always above the disc, and never appear to descend slowly "below" it. At the least, the sun, as it moved away, would...

Perspective means, things diminish in size as they get farther away and disappear in the convergence point in the distance. It doesn't mean a ball of light remains the same size until it sets under the horizon.

Honestly, carnal/physical/material things do not concern me at all. They are irrelevent. But, they can be discussed. I sometimes enjoy indulging in a bit of, trivial propositioning. I'm not able to discern what you're trying to say here. What I was saying was that, on a flat earth, there could...

Now, whether the earth is moving, or, everything else is moving around it, is a more complicated question.