Debunking Flat Earth

[A_Thinker]

See, and there is where we disagree.
A fictional "superiour being" can never exceed the limits of the inferiour ones.
A real one can. That's why it is superiour.

I have no problem disagreeing ... given our shared lack of perfect understanding.

That being the case, ... how do you propose that superior beings could exceed the limits of inferior beings with whom they are communicating ?

Would that be something similar to our typical interaction with our dogs ? Have you discovered some way to convey perfect understanding to your dog ?

 

[Tom 1]

Nope. Sorry, but you didn't understand the original "argument".

The bible does get "misunderstood". This is an observable fact, and in this regard here, this was a statment made by a Christian.

Now the question was: what is the cause of that "vast misinterpretation and misunderstanding of scripture".
In regard to intent, this is either intentional... or not. (Where the "not" category includes both a different intention as well a no intention at all).

That's all. No differences in outcome or reasons for different outcomes. Just a single, binary question about intent.

All the talk about methods and fulfilments and outcomes is irrelevant. You just don't understand it.

I came in at this point

The only thing that one can conclude, given an omniscient author, is that God meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood

Which equates the outcome (misunderstanding) with the intent. That is what I started responding to. There are things that can be observed, different interpretations, additional teachings, different methods of interpretation and so on. None of those things are the outcome of any original intent. The closest you could get to that would be to argue that the intent was to cause division by somehow causing the different interpretations of the same text.

 

[Freodin]

I have no problem disagreeing ... given our shared lack of perfect understanding.

That being the case, ... how do you propose that superior beings could exceed the limits of inferior beings with whom they are communicating ?

Would that be something similar to our typical interaction with our dogs ? Have you discovered some way to covey perfect understanding to your dog ?

Good example.
Humans have obviously managed to get dogs to do what they want, most of the time. Dogs do not tell other dogs to guard sheep, guide blind people or search for lost children. All that is beyond their nature, their understanding.
But humans, with their superiour intelligence and understanding can get dogs to do all that.

"Perfect" understanding is not needed for this example. It wasn't part of my original posts.

 

[Freodin]

I came in at this point

Which equates the outcome (misunderstanding) with the intent. That is what I started responding to. There are things that can be observed, different interpretations, additional teachings, different methods of interpretation and so on. None of those things are the outcome of any original intent. The closest you could get to that would be to argue that the intent was to cause division by somehow causing the different interpretations of the same text.

Nope, again. And you really should know better than to quotemine.
The full quote from Frumious: "Two possibilities exist. Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or He did not. Both are equally damning."

And, no, even Tinker Grey's quote does not equate outcome with the intent. It draws a logical line from one to the other... and a valid one.

If you intentionally act in a way that you know will fail... the responsibility is with you. And if you intentionally act to the best of your capabilities, and still fail... it shows the limits of your capabilities.

 

[Ophiolite]

Patrick Moore's book Guide to the Planets, which was published in 1957, includes a footnote to the first page of Chapter 3, 'There is still a flourishing Flat Earth Society in London.' According to Christine Garwood's book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea (p. 225), the inaugural meeting of the International Flat Earth Society was held in Finsbury Park in November 1956, and Patrick Moore attended it.

The world lost a joyful personality when we lost Sir Patrick. You have triggered a memory. I had a copy of that book - if I recall correctly it was a Penguin paperback. The footnote you refer to sounds familiar.

Attending a FE Society meeting sounds so typical of his wry sense of humour. When he was Director of the Armagh Planatarium in N.Ireland he got frustrated with constant questions as to his religion: Protestant or Catholic. So he purchased a statue of Bhudda in a junk shop, placed it in a prominent position in the window of his front room and bowed to it ceremoniously each time he left his house. The questions stopped.

 

[A_Thinker]

Humans have obviously managed to get dogs to do what they want, most of the time.

Yes, we can get them to do a few tasks for us, ... but not in an unlimited or perfect way. Having had dogs for the last 25 years, I understand the limitations we face in this regard.

Dogs do not tell other dogs to guard sheep, guide blind people or search for lost children. All that is beyond their nature, their understanding.

But humans, with their superiour intelligence and understanding can get dogs to do all that.

You realize that dogs do have inherent tendencies and capabilities which enable our training them to do these things, right ?

Which is why we cannot get cats to do the same things ...

 

[Freodin]

Yes, we can get them to do a few tasks for us, ... but not in an unlimited or perfect way. Having had dogs for the last 25 years, I understand the limitations we face in this regard.

I didn't say anything about unlimited or perfect.
Yes, there are limitations. Of course there are... I have had enough dogs of my own to know.
But these are as much our limitations as humans as they are the dogs' limitations. Still, because we are in some regard "superiour" to dogs, we can push beyond the limitations of the dogs... but not our own.

[eta: re: cats] That tells us something about cats, doesn't it?

 

[Tom 1]

If you intentionally act in a way that you know will fail... the responsibility is with you. And if you intentionally act to the best of your capabilities, and still fail... it shows the limits of your capabilities.

That's the idea I have an issue with, it is so woefully inadequate to address the question being raised. To my mind this whole discussion is about whether or not you accept that some abstract notion is sufficient reason to say that you understand something in any kind of meaningful way. I would say that arguments of this sort demonstrate some kind of inability to grasp the broader context.

Nope, again. And you really should know better than to quotemine.

What's the difference between the two quotes? I copied that on my phone from the nearest available post, I'd appreciate it if you controlled your urge to sling accusations around.

 

[Tom 1]

If you intentionally act in a way that you know will fail... the responsibility is with you. And if you intentionally act to the best of your capabilities, and still fail... it shows the limits of your capabilities.

Fail to do what, in this context? You are continuing to make an argument without any sort of definition of what it is supposed to have some bearing on.

 

[Freodin]

What's the difference between the two quotes? I copied that on my phone from the nearest available post, I'd appreciate it if you controlled your urge to sling accusations around.

Either Tom Farebrother does not understand this argument, or he does. In both cases he tries to evade the point.

"Tom Farebrother does not understand this argument"

If you really cannot tell the difference between these two sentences, I have no response anymore. Why, in any case I have no response anymore.
I could understand if you had a fundamental disagreement with the conclusion of the aphorism that started all that... but your constant attempt to make it into something that it isn't and was never meant to be... this gets annoying.

Thanks for your time.

 

[46AND2]

Either Tom Farebrother does not understand this argument, or he does. In both cases he tries to evade the point.

"Tom Farebrother does not understand this argument"

If you really cannot tell the difference between these two sentences, I have no response anymore. Why, in any case I have no response anymore.
I could understand if you had a fundamental disagreement with the conclusion of the aphorism that started all that... but your constant attempt to make it into something that it isn't and was never meant to be... this gets annoying.

Thanks for your time.

I've had similar discussions about an omniscient, omnipotent creator imbibing free will. The argument I lay out, to me, is patently obvious, but my opponents' desperation to deny the ramifications of that argument blind them to the point I'm actually raising. They invoke "So's Law," or it's equivalent, over and over again.

It is indeed annoying, but I think you tempered that annoyance as well as can be expected throughout this exchange.

 

[Tom 1]

but your constant attempt to make it into something that it isn't and was never meant to be... this gets annoying.

Sure, I can see you are annoyed. I'm not attempting to make it into anything - simply pointing out that without any sort of definition it has no meaning at all. I'm equally bemused by your inability to see that.

 

[Lost4words]

Nope. Sorry, but you didn't understand the original "argument".

The bible does get "misunderstood". This is an observable fact, and in this regard here, this was a statment made by a Christian.

Now the question was: what is the cause of that "vast misinterpretation and misunderstanding of scripture".
In regard to intent, this is either intentional... or not. (Where the "not" category includes both a different intention as well a no intention at all).

That's all. No differences in outcome or reasons for different outcomes. Just a single, binary question about intent.

All the talk about methods and fulfilments and outcomes is irrelevant. You just don't understand it.

You over complicate it.

People just misinterpret and misunderstand scripture. Simple really.

 

[Freodin]

You over complicate it.

People just misinterpret and misunderstand scripture. Simple really.

People also misinterpret and misunderstand Ikae montage instructions. Even simpler. But there is a difference between having a crooked Billy cupboard and eternal damnation.

Simple.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nope. Sorry, but you didn't understand the original "argument".

The bible does get "misunderstood". This is an observable fact, and in this regard here, this was a statment made by a Christian.

Now the question was: what is the cause of that "vast misinterpretation and misunderstanding of scripture".
In regard to intent, this is either intentional... or not. (Where the "not" category includes both a different intention as well a no intention at all).

That's all. No differences in outcome or reasons for different outcomes. Just a single, binary question about intent.

All the talk about methods and fulfilments and outcomes is irrelevant. You just don't understand it.

I think that this question should have it's own thread in the proper section of the forum... right?

 

[JacksBratt]

That means basically that God will grant everybody what you wish for them.

Not what "I" wish for them.. but what they wish for. That is in the most basic form...

If you believe in God and love Him and want to spend eternity with Him... and you believe that He sent His son to die for your sins so that you could have this wish... Then your wish will be granted.

If you believe in Him but disagree with His basic teachings and outlines for life.. Eg: Love your Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind... and Treat your neighbore the way you want to be treated....and...., therefore, don't wish to be near Him... then He will grant you your wish also.

If you don't believe in Him... then... well... what are you even concerned about?

 

[JacksBratt]

See, and there is where we disagree.
A fictional "superiour being" can never exceed the limits of the inferiour ones.
A real one can. That's why it is superiour.

Can "fictional beings" superior or inferior... do anything?

 

[JacksBratt]

You over complicate it.

People just misinterpret and misunderstand scripture. Simple really.

Hey... Lost.... I agree...

Really... how basic is that concept?....

And.. can it not be applied to any ideology?

People misinterpret and misunderstand all documentation in all subjects, classes, disciplines and theories.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hey... Lost.... I agree...

Really... how basic is that concept?....

And.. can it not be applied to any ideology?

People misinterpret and misunderstand all documentation in all subjects, classes, disciplines and theories.

And yet, the question remains: was this, or was this not, God's intent. in either case what does this say about God.

 

[JacksBratt]

And yet, the question remains: was this, or was this not, God's intent. in either case what does this say about God.

I believe, and this is my own opinion, that God intended the bible to be understood by the very simple.. and extend to the extremely intelligent and inquisitive of men.

The main purpose of the bible, again IMO, is to present the gospel, the reason for it and the history of it's coming.

The problem is not that God intended it to be misunderstood... The fact is that as man delves into it... they are going to approach scriptural theology that is beyond their capabilities.

I know that this happens to me... Revelation is a killer.. However, I have read the work of people that are way more versed in this book and they unveil things to me that I never thought of..

Still, though, even these people reach their capacity...

The bible is a book of layers and layers and the deeper you go the more you find that you don't know.

The bible is misunderstood because, like any subject of this complexity.. people comment on things that they are not worthy of commenting on and are beyond their capacity to rightly state anything as solid truth.