Debunking Flat Earth

[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 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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Thank you for your clear, honest, humble reply. And yet, the question remains unanswered.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

 

[46AND2]

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.

So the Bible is just an ordinary book now?

 

[fwGod]

I don't know you personally, so I am not equipped to comment on you personally. (And have no interest in doing so.)

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.

So I'm not the puffed up one here. While you talk as if you own all knowledge on the topic and look down on everyone else who dares to speak on it.

I can, however, comment upon the content of your posts. Your earlier post contained an important statement that was wholly incorrect.

The second time that you vaguely point to it without actually saying what it is.

I think it's because you don't want me to point out how wrong you are again. If I'm wrong then all you have to do is copy my error, then give your opinion on it again. And we'll go from there.

This raises questions concerning your knowledge of the subject.

That is interesting because I saw nothing in your post(s) to me that indicated that you actually knew anything about the subject.

If you did, then one would think that you'd actually post your knowledge on the subject instead of personally addressing me.

Now you may think that is personal. Nonsense.

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.

If you pontificate on a subject the reader has a right to expect that the writer is reasonably well grounded.

Exactly what I thought you would at least be able to do. However,

An egregious error calls that into question.

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.

If you don't like being corrected for errors, don't make them.

Exactly. It's amusing that you continue to critique yourself.

Again. I conclude that your post here has been nothing about the topic of the thread. You've given nothing to show that you know the topic. And you've again used your time to attempt to make everyone think that you're the smart one in this exchange.

Now. Are you going to post a reply that has actual information on the topic of flat earth, or not?

 

[JacksBratt]

Thank you for your clear, honest, humble reply. And yet, the question remains unanswered.

Well, You will have to keep searching. Maybe post it in a thread and see what you find.

 

[JacksBratt]

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 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.

 

[Ophiolite]

The second time that you vaguely point to it without actually saying what it is.

I specifically quoted these words of yours:

"The flat earth idea has shown up less than a decade ago."

That is wholly false and reveals a profound ignorance on your part as to the background of Flat Earth beliefs.

It is strange that those words can no longer be found in the relevant post. I wonder why that is? 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.

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. It's not too late.

 

[JacksBratt]

So the Bible is just an ordinary book now?

That's your "take away" from that?

 

[46AND2]

That's your "take away" from that?

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.

 

[fwGod]

I specifically quoted these words of yours:

"The flat earth idea has shown up less than a decade ago."

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!

That is wholly false and reveals a profound ignorance on your part as to the background of Flat Earth beliefs.

I don't have to know ALL ABOUT IT in order to discern that it's start to now.. false.

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!

It is strange that those words can no longer be found in the relevant post. I wonder why that is?

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.

There is no other hidden reason!

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.

As stated I considered the biblical content to be pointless as a way to base my arguments against a flat earth.

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.

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'm not the least bit interested in earning your respect! So forget trying to get me to grovel to you!

It's not too late.

I can't tell you how much I don't care.

If you're are saying that my error is that stupid reason you give that I said the flat earth was ten years old... then your erroneous justification is grounds to patronize me! For the third time...!!

That reason you give is such a lamebrain excuse for why you STILL haven't posted your proof that the earth is flat.

I prefer to discuss with someone who would challenge my knowledge. You have shown time and again that you don't qualify.

We're done.

 

[Ophiolite]

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!

Thank you for recognising that you were in error.

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!

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.

Contrary to your dismissive view, the history of the FE movement is relevant to a proper understanding of it.

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.

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.

Aside: It is generally considered bad internet etiquette to delete posts, or significant portions of posts unless they are threatening, pornographic, or otherwise unacceptable. (In which case they should never have been posted in the first place.)

By deleting the entire post you removed a very useful insight into your viewpoint and the reasons for it. Thus removing it was both self-defeating and rude.

There is no other hidden reason!

That's good. Glad to hear it.

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 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.

I'm not the least bit interested in earning your respect! So forget trying to get me to grovel to you!

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.

That reason you give is such a lamebrain excuse for why you STILL haven't posted your proof that the earth is flat

There are three important points here.
1. You have not asked me to post my proof that the Earth is flat.
2. I don't believe that the Earth is flat, have never believed that the Earth is flat and do not expect to ever believe that the Earth is flat.
3. I think you are confusing me with another member, since - as far as I can recall - the only discussion I have had with you in this thread is in regard to your error on the age of FE beliefs.

 

[Lost4words]

Lets get back to the main focus of this thread people

 

[Ophiolite]

Lets get back to the main focus of this thread people

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?

Side Note: I don't think many threads of 27+ pages retain much of a link with the OP. At least here everyone is still broadly on FE matters and no one has brought up evolution, Hitler, or Area 51. (Until now. )

 

[Freodin]

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?

Aaaaaand.... again that whooshing sound. Another point went by, unnoticed, unloved, drifting lonely into the night.

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...

 

[Freodin]

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.

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

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

Thank you for that.

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.

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).

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...

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

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'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I would appreciate it if you did not quote-mine my posts in a way that changes the meaning of what I said. What I said was:

...Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, or He did not.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

My point was that all subjects and documents that are read by humans... will have misunderstandings...

This in no way shape or form was meant to state that all written documents are equal in the complexity, truth, depth or validity of their content...

You basically missed the whole point, chose to spin what I said...... . Or.... misunderstood what I wrote...