I still think that you need to post this in it's proper location.. You would arouse those who have better ability to debate or discuss it.
Upvote
0
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.
I still think that you need to post this in it's proper location.. You would arouse those who have better ability to debate or discuss it.And yet, the question remains: was this, or was this not, God's intent. in either case what does this say about God.
Thank you for your clear, honest, humble reply. And yet, the question remains unanswered.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.
Which sub-forum do you suggest? Keep in mind I did not originate the question. I just joined a band wagon that seemed to playing a well orchestrated tune.I still think that you need to post this in it's proper location.. You would arouse those who have better ability to debate or discuss it.
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.
You bothered yourself enough to amuse yourself in patronizing me. However I do agree that you don't know me and therefore you aren't equipped to comment on me personally. Therefore the sense of superiority that you elevate yourself by.. is from your own puffed up ego. While I have used the information on my previous posts on this topic that comes from others and not myself.I don't know you personally, so I am not equipped to comment on you personally. (And have no interest in doing so.)
The second time that you vaguely point to it without actually saying what it is.I can, however, comment upon the content of your posts. Your earlier post contained an important statement that was wholly incorrect.
That is interesting because I saw nothing in your post(s) to me that indicated that you actually knew anything about the subject.This raises questions concerning your knowledge of the subject.
It is personal. And it's a meandering path of distraction because me thinks that you know that you have no superior knowledge on the topic.Now you may think that is personal. Nonsense.
Exactly what I thought you would at least be able to do. However,If you pontificate on a subject the reader has a right to expect that the writer is reasonably well grounded.
You have described your efforts right there. And thus my disappointment that you couldn't stump me by the vast knowledge that you claim to have.An egregious error calls that into question.
Exactly. It's amusing that you continue to critique yourself.If you don't like being corrected for errors, don't make them.
Well, You will have to keep searching. Maybe post it in a thread and see what you find.Thank you for your clear, honest, humble reply. And yet, the question remains unanswered.
I don't know.. Just browse the ones available and chose what you feel fits. The mods will direct you if it's in the wrong one.Which sub-forum do you suggest? Keep in mind I did not originate the question. I just joined a band wagon that seemed to playing a well orchestrated tune.
I specifically quoted these words of yours:The second time that you vaguely point to it without actually saying what it is.
That's your "take away" from that?
Well excuse me for not qualifying that statement by saying that I was speaking from my own experience of when I first heard about it!I specifically quoted these words of yours:
"The flat earth idea has shown up less than a decade ago."
I don't have to know ALL ABOUT IT in order to discern that it's start to now.. false.That is wholly false and reveals a profound ignorance on your part as to the background of Flat Earth beliefs.
If you are the atheist, then that is the reason why that post is now deleted. Because I didn't bother to look at who I was talking to.. until later. So I thought it was pointless to use Bible references. Because I know how little an atheist values the Bible.It is strange that those words can no longer be found in the relevant post. I wonder why that is?
As stated I considered the biblical content to be pointless as a way to base my arguments against a flat earth.Did you accidentally delete it? I am sure you aware that forum staff can access all older versions of posts, so the deletion can be recovered.
I'm not the least bit interested in earning your respect! So forget trying to get me to grovel to you!The rest of your reply appears to be fluff to justify your continual refusal to admit your error. That would have redounded to your honour and generated respect for your behaviour.
I can't tell you how much I don't care.It's not too late.
Thank you for recognising that you were in error.Well excuse me for not qualifying that statement by saying that I was speaking from my own experience of when I first heard about it!
Then it is just as well I did not do that. I noted that your error "called into question" your competence to be expressing opinions on the matter. The phrase "called into question" does not mean that other things you wrote are wrong, it means they need to be examined more carefully than would otherwise be the case ,since you now have a track record of significant ignorance on at least one aspect of the matter.It's a HUGE MISTAKE on your part to judge everything I say against it based solely on my not knowing when the dumb thing began!
Really. I value the Bible immensely. It is the cornerstone of one of the worlds major religions. It has played a prominent role in the development and expansion of Western Civilisation. It is a valuable repository of historical, cultural, mythical, moral and literary concepts. I am perfectly comfortable with Biblical references and use them myself on occasion.If you are the atheist, then that is the reason why that post is now deleted. Because I didn't bother to look at who I was talking to.. until later. So I thought it was pointless to use Bible references. Because I know how little an atheist values the Bible.
That's good. Glad to hear it.There is no other hidden reason!
I don't think I mentioned the Bible. The post you deleted was not a response to one of my posts. Of course, since you deleted it I can no longer tell who it was a response to. I simply noted the error in the post and corrected it. Everything since then has been you getting offended at the correction and the manner of the correction.Even though you brought up mention of the Bible.. but, they had nothing to do with a flat earth. Since you did read my post, then you know that.
I certainly wasn't talking about earning my respect. That's not really worth very much. I was thinking of the wider audience who are reading and judging these exchanges. I'm sorry that you think a simple, straightforward acknowledgement of an error is the equivalent of grovelling. Man! That means I've sure done a lot of grovelling in my time.I'm not the least bit interested in earning your respect! So forget trying to get me to grovel to you!
There are three important points here.That reason you give is such a lamebrain excuse for why you STILL haven't posted your proof that the earth is flat
With respect, there seems to me very little point to the thread. The notion of a Flat Earth is ludicrous. The evidence was overwhelmingly against it before the Space Age and has simply become irrefutable since. To assert a belief in a FE one must be trolling, seriously distracted, or under the powerful influence of Dunning-Kruger. Several of the major points disproving FE have been well rehearsed in this thread. What do you think remains to be discussed?Lets get back to the main focus of this thread people
Aaaaaand.... again that whooshing sound. Another point went by, unnoticed, unloved, drifting lonely into the night.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?
It was in response to one of my posts. You can find the original text of his post in my response, Debunking Flat Earth, post #406The post you deleted was not a response to one of my posts. Of course, since you deleted it I can no longer tell who it was a response to.
Thank you for that.It was in response to one of my posts. You can find the original text of his post in my response, Debunking Flat Earth, post #406
In fairness, that was not true of me i.e. I had not shown him what the Bible had said. I had just pointed out an error on his part. I was arguably a little cavalier in how I presented the correction, but that ties in with my viewpoint on how to conduct oneself on a forum. Rule #3 Pay primary heed to what the person says not how they say it (but feel free to give and receive commentary on presentation style).I can understand your frustration. There's not much as annoying in this context as having a believer shout at you "I don't talk with you because you don't believe what the Bible says"... after you have shown him, using the Bible, that the Bible does not say what he claims it says.
Because if the brain is not exercised it atrophies. And once in a while a message hits its target, the sun comes out , birds sing, flowers bloom, lambs gambol in the meadows and the Rugby World Cup begins in France at 11:30 BST.Sometimes I despair, seeing how people can lack the ability to imagine even the simplest of points. Sometimes I despair, seeing how I am apparently unable to make people see the simplest of points.
Why am I even trying...
I'm not saying anything about that relationship. I made a logical point about the implications of the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the 'word of God'.The point, or question, is what are you saying is the relationship between how people choose or are taught to interpret the bible, and God’s intent in conveying something through the bible?
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.
...Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or He did not.
My point was that all subjects and documents that are read by humans... will have misunderstandings...Um...you compared the misunderstandings of the Bible to misunderstanding any other documentation. Thereby equating them. If that wasn't your intention, then your analogy fails.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?