A flat earth and an earth-centered universe

SeventyOne said:

Completely? Probably near 30 times at this point in my life.

Click to expand...

Then you should know better than to try and force your particular interpretation.

What, would you say, is the basic message of the scriptures ... ???

SeventyOne said:

Yes, I do believe the scriptures are God-breathed at every point, just as it states. Jesus even calls it the word of God in multiple places, such as Matthew 4:4 and 15:6. Jesus even told the Pharisees they didn't believe in Him because they didn't believe what Moses had written about Him. So, don't try to pass off this 'faith in Jesus, not the Bible' garbage with me. That won't fly. Both were sent by the Father.

BTW, thanks for this. It is a perfect example of the mental process used to excuse away the scriptures.

Click to expand...

So, your argument is it should all be taken literally, because you take it literally. Might be worth pondering on the weaknesses of circular arguments.

Tom Farebrother said:

So, your argument is it should all be taken literally, because you take it literally. Might be worth pondering on the weaknesses of circular arguments.

Click to expand...

No, my argument is that it should ALL be taken as truth. Not only those parts we choose to believe at any given time. We must conform to it, not the other way around.

A_Thinker said:

Then you should know better than to try and force this particular interpretation of the scriptures.

What, would you say, is the basic message of the scriptures ... ???

Click to expand...

I forced a heliocentric interpretation on the scriptures for years, which caused a lot of confusion in many areas. Flat earth has required zero forcing whatsoever so far.

Perhaps you should consider why you are forcing heliocentrism in there yourself.

SeventyOne said:

I forced a heliocentric interpretation on the scriptures for years, which caused a lot of confusion in many areas. Flat earth has required zero forcing whatsoever so far.

Perhaps you should consider why you are forcing heliocentrism in there yourself.

Click to expand...

I'm not.

The shape of the earth has NEVER been a feature of my study or teaching of the scriptures. To me, it is irrelevant to the message of the scriptures.

It is those who push the flat earth interpretation who seem to see it as their mission to convert the masses to their view. (It's not the gospel, FWIW)

Why would a belief in a flat earth be so vital to the understanding of the gospel ?

JohnClay said:

I think that is just referring to the idea of the head being above / more important than other parts. It is like how God created Eve from Adam's side to show they were initially equal (before the curse). I guess that's the only example you have and it doesn't clearly refer to mental processes. If it did it means Christ is like the brain of the church but it means he is the boss.

Click to expand...

Why would head be "the boss" if the heart is the most important thing? You seem to shift the context to normalize your hypothesis here, but that's besides the more advanced point that I'll attempt to make. I'm not sure that I'll be able to get through to you given the reductionist nature of your approach to reality, but I'll give it a try.

First, let's re-calibrate against what I'm arguing for, and that wouldn't be the literal approach to Biblical narrative. If we take academic approach, then whatever stories were written down, these were written down by political philosophers of the priestly class, and these were written down for the purpose of formalizing these ideals by communicating "concrete forms" that such ideals could be understood as.

Likewise, you have to understand that you can't judge the systematic and specialized cultural knowledge on the bases of philosophical literature. For example, if all that survived from Pre-Victorian era were Kant's writings, then you would have a very incomplete handle on scientific views of the past. The past is much more complex than Kant's writings.

So, while you do have Aristotle's view on brain, you also have Hippocratic one, and he wasn't alone in thinking that. So, there were always a wide variety of competing schools of thought that sparked and died, and some were embedded and propagated into cultural linguistics a method of speaking conceptual reality as opposed to actual one.

So just like today, if you ask an average person about quantum physics based on nominal linguistic descriptions that they've heard, they will likely tell you a vastly different story than the one quantum physicists are telling.

But, what you seem to expect is this nominal equivalence.... not only in original formulation of these ideas in context of agrarian culture, but you also seem to expect the "idiomatic continuum" , because that's how you end up judging whether philosophical ideals of that culture are viable for us today.

Hence, you absurdly expect the linguistic metaphors of that culture to conform to scientific reality that we have today... when even in our culture that's not the case.

And that's why I find such approach utterly absurd. You take the seat at the "irrational teacher's desk" where you conclude that conceptual meaning of any given paper of the student is wrong because they paint factually-incorrect analogies. So, moral concepts embedded in a story about a talking cats gets an F

And yes, I understand that there are bunch of kids there who are running around thinking that cats can talk, but that's a phase that all of us go through if we use illustrative metaphors to explain concepts. And we actually never stop doing that, since we end up reifying a whole score of concepts.

So, there's multiple levels of "true", and you have chosen to focus on one of the most primitive ones.

SeventyOne said:

No, my argument is that it should ALL be taken as truth. Not only those parts we choose to believe at any given time. We must conform to it, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Truth and a literal interpretation aren't the same thing - by being over-literal you risk missing what is actually being said.

JohnClay said:

Are you saying that the authors knew the earth was spherical and it moved around the sun?

Click to expand...

Its how you interpret scripture.

Tom Farebrother said:

Truth and a literal interpretation aren't the same thing - by being over-literal you risk missing what is actually being said.

Click to expand...

You are telling me don't believe what it says, rather believe what I'm told by others is the truth and somehow fit it in there.

Ummm, no.

A_Thinker said:

I'm not.

The shape of the earth has NEVER been a feature of my study or teaching of the scriptures. To me, it is irrelevant to the message of the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but when you interject yourself into these discussions, the actions disagree with the words.

It is those who push the flat earth interpretation who seem to see it as their mission to convert the masses to their view. (It's not the gospel, FWIW)

Why would a belief in a flat earth be so vital to the understanding of the gospel ?

Click to expand...

Because it is the foundation to the evolutionary, alien, transhuman paradigms on which make who reject Christ misplace their trust. I've seen numerous people claim it was flat earth that opened them up to the gospel, because they no longer believed they were a biological accident, but was planned and designed by God. It's not the gospel itself, but it is an exceedingly effective evangelistic tool that produces massive amounts of fruit.

And also because it's the truth.

SeventyOne said:

Because it is the foundation to the evolutionary, alien, transhuman paradigms on which make who reject Christ misplace their trust.

Click to expand...

And what did non-believers previous to the 20th century base their non-belief upon ???

Jesus said that men refuse to come to the Light ... because their deeds are evil, ... and those that do do so ... because their deeds are true.

Nothing about whether they believe in a flat earth or not ...

John 3

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

SeventyOne said:

I've seen numerous people claim it was flat earth that opened them up to the gospel, because they no longer believed they were a biological accident, but was planned and designed by God.

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea of how many people have accepted the gospel as globe believers ? Can you say billions ???

If the controversy results in a few more converts, I'm certainly not opposed, ... but it's not as if globe belief is responsible for billions of people not believing.

A_Thinker said:

And what did non-believers previous to the 20th century base their non-belief upon ???

Click to expand...

Are you implying seeking to remove a huge lie separating others from Christ isn't worthwhile?

A_Thinker said:

Do you have any idea of how many people have accepted the gospel as globe believers ? Can you say billions ???

If the controversy results in a few more converts, I'm certainly not opposed, ... but it's not as if globe belief is responsible for billions of people not believing.

Click to expand...

I never said it's the only reason, but it is a reason. If you are opposed to telling people the truth, just say so plainly.

SeventyOne said:

Are you implying seeking to remove a huge lie separating others from Christ isn't worthwhile?

Click to expand...

The issue is that not every Christian agrees with you about the "truth" of the flat earth.

It's a disagreement about what is true, ... not about the value of truth.

SeventyOne said:

I never said it's the only reason, but it is a reason. If you are opposed to telling people the truth, just say so plainly.

Click to expand...

If flat-earth is so "true" ... why are its proponents so apt to use weasel words in its promotion, ... rather than just argue its merits ???

A_Thinker said:

The issue is that not every Christian agrees with you about the "truth" of the flat earth.

It's a disagreement about what is true, ... not about the value of truth.

Click to expand...

Which is a shame. One day I hope you know the truth in the matter yourself.

A_Thinker said:

If flat-earth is so "true" ... why are its proponents so apt to use weasel words in its promotion, ... rather than just argue its merits ???

Click to expand...

If you mean on this forum, I've tried on numerous threads to argue its merits, providing resources to dozens of sources of proof. The whole time I'm met with ridicule, dismissive behavior, and insults. It's a fruitless endeavor in this current forum climate. I won't be dong so again for a long while.

SeventyOne said:

If you mean on this forum, I've tried on numerous threads to argue its merits, providing resources to dozens of sources of proof.

Click to expand...

So ... when that doesn't bring the results you hope for, ... you choose to try and impugn my character ... by insinuating that I am opposed to telling people the truth ?

SeventyOne said:

Which is a shame. One day I hope you know the truth in the matter yourself.




If you mean on this forum, I've tried on numerous threads to argue its merits, providing resources to dozens of sources of proof. The whole time I'm met with ridicule, dismissive behavior, and insults. It's a fruitless endeavor in this current forum climate. I won't be dong so again for a long while.

Click to expand...

If such merits are warranted, why not instead collaborate with the 'scientists' which have such evidence, and present them for peer review? I think we all want to know the truth. Presenting evidence here isn't going to change anything. Get the powers-that-be to investigate. I would hate for people in school to continue to be purposefully taught lies.

SeventyOne said:

Which is a shame. One day I hope you know the truth in the matter yourself.




If you mean on this forum, I've tried on numerous threads to argue its merits, providing resources to dozens of sources of proof. The whole time I'm met with ridicule, dismissive behavior, and insults. It's a fruitless endeavor in this current forum climate. I won't be dong so again for a long while.

Click to expand...

So... hi... butting in here. The Greeks not only proved that the earth is a globe, but they calculated the radius to reasonable accuracy.

Their scientific tools:

1. a stick

Do you have these tools?