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.
While I love wrestling and William Regal, it might be a bit more productive if you actually posted things that supported your argument.This is me trying to set this tax payer funded horse maneuver science about "$$$pace" back on real science at 1 minute mark:
Many believers say that the bible/scripture is God's word and that God is omnipotent. They also agree that the bible/scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood.Can you be more specific?
LOL! It IS leaning away from you less and less as you get closer. The problem is...at 70 miles away from the mountain, it leans about ONE degree away from you. If you think you should be able to notice--by eye, from 70 miles away--a mountain that is at 91 degrees instead of 90, you are out of your mind.
So funny. Perhaps THE worst argument I've ever seen for a flat earth.
Many believers say that the bible/scripture is God's word and that God is omnipotent. They also agree that the bible/scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood.
So God is the communicator, the communication is the bible/scripture, and those it was addressed to are said to be humankind - but in particular, believers in that God.
An omnipotent God could communicate His word so that it would not be misinterpreted or misunderstood (particularly as He is said to be the creator of humanity and so would know what is required to achieve that).
Not being a believer, I'm not really in a position to be more specific; I'm just taking claims they've made at face value.
Something that Flat Earthers are commonly very bad at: understanding scale.LOL! It IS leaning away from you less and less as you get closer. The problem is...at 70 miles away from the mountain, it leans about ONE degree away from you. If you think you should be able to notice--by eye, from 70 miles away--a mountain that is at 91 degrees instead of 90, you are out of your mind.
So funny. Perhaps THE worst argument I've ever seen for a flat earth.
Something that Flat Earthers are commonly very bad at: understanding scale.
As I said, how you want to interpret it is entirely up to you.The quote you started with addresses the text, the supposed author and all people, not what somebody said about those things. So the question would be for what reason do you think it is a valid idea, in relation to the things it addresses. To demonstrate that you’d need to define a number of things, for example what would define a universal understanding of some writing or other that purports to address the range of topics included in the bible? What would that look like, in practice? For people, both those who read it and those who didn’t, to think the same thing about it? Or you could take an example of something people disagree on, look at why they disagree on it and comment on it, explaining what makes some part of that a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Those would be questions that address the things the quote relates to.
As I said, how you want to interpret it is entirely up to you.
CGI....That is the simplest part of their hoax..If that were the case, then footage from unmanned probes wouldn't be released either, yet that's very common today.
Here is a very interesting compilation of the simple fact that "we see too far"..Binoculars?!?!?!? Is this the walmart type of binoculars?
Is that how rule out flat earth???
Forget the fact you should've seen the mountain LEANING away from you and then becoming 90 degrees as you approached closer.
CGI....That is the simplest part of their hoax..
They don't do any missions..... That is my point.Way to totally miss the point of the conversation. Morse was just saying that the reason they don't do manned moon missions nowadays is because it would be too easy to tell that the CGI was fake. I pointed out that if that was the case, why do they still do unmanned missions?
They don't do any missions..... That is my point.
IC... thank you for clearing that up. I disagree that they don't go because the CGI would look fake. I think that CGI is so good now that people still believe that Elon put a car in space..And once again you fail to understand the line of argument.
Morse: They don't go to the moon anymore because they never went there in the first place!
Me: If they faked it back then, why not continue to fake it now?
Morse: Because it would be too easy to tell that it's fake!
Me: Then why do they still do unmanned missions, with so much footage that is supposedly so easy to prove is fake?
He had no answer for that, and you don't even comprehend the question being asked.
CGI....That is the simplest part of their hoax..
IC... thank you for clearing that up. I disagree that they don't go because the CGI would look fake. I think that CGI is so good now that people still believe that Elon put a car in space..
However, others asked the intelligent questions that made it fully apparrent that it was fake... Tires not exploding in a vacuum, dash board and other plastics not melting or cracking in the extreme temperature fluctuations... Elon even said that it was not designed for the harsh environment of space. It was not a special edition just a car off the line... Then.. said.. "it has to be real... it looks so fake.. our CGI is much better than that"
If they start saying that they are going to the moon again... people are going to start asking for proof that they cannot present.
Personally.. with the soft disclosure of UFO's. Well, what the atheistic Darwinian evolutionists are claiming UFO's to be... and all the other things that are going on.... I believe that the world population is in for some very disturbing "scientific" disclosures...of the Satanic motivated and deceptive kind....
As a result.. the so called "mars mission" and more moon shots.. will be way down the list of things the public are asking questions about.
Binoculars?!?!?!? Is this the walmart type of binoculars?
Is that how rule out flat earth???
Forget the fact you should've seen the mountain LEANING away from you and then becoming 90 degrees as you approached closer.
The original quote by Arther C Clarke was about the existence of terrestrial life, so 'paraphrase' isn't really the correct word - I couldn't think of a word that meant saying something different using the same stylistic form. I knew a few people would pick up on the reference, but it doesn't really matter.Good point. Here is how I interpret it:
To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke -
Two possibilities exist - there are 2 possibilities
Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood - one possibility
He did not - the other
Both are equally damning - the conclusion.
As you posted this, my assumption is that you are willing to discuss it.
My interpretation of what you are saying is - people say the bible is misinterpreted and misunderstood, ergo, if this is true, God either intended this or he didn’t.
Some thought experiments don’t refer to anything real - they are thought experiments. Presumably whoever asked ‘what is the sound of one hand clapping?’ wasn’t asking for some kind of physical demonstration. If he or she was, then, well, problem solved, if not, there’s some stuff there to think about.
What you are saying however relates to things that something can be found out about, not to abstract ideas. Some of these are: what is meant by misinterpretation and misunderstanding? In relation to what? Determined by who and how? Is the existence of some set of complex ideas, stories, social theories and so on that can be universally understood by everyone on the planet in exactly the same way an actual possibility? Is it at least theoretically possible, and if so, how? Does the bible in some way require that kind of universal understanding? In what precise ways would the lack of such universal understanding, were it to be required, relate to the intention of its supposed author, if the bible had a single author?
These questions all relate to the quote, if you think the author was referring to some other set of things other than the bible and people and god/the idea of god perhaps you could explain your perspective. As you began this thought experiment, perhaps you could explain some of your answers to the questions it raises?
Well, not really; that doesn't make sense - omniscience is about knowledge, not action, and a round square is an oxymoron, impossible by definition. The suggestion is that an omnipotent entity could communicate clearly and effectively so as not to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
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?