Debunking Flat Earth

[JacksBratt]

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...

Take a look at what you wrote:

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

You "basically" italicized the word "you". Made a "basic" statement.

So, if others are "missing" your points.. Maybe it's the fact that we cannot read your mind on what you are implying by your "basic" use of the English language.

Maybe either try harder... Or.... better still... start a thread with your lofty musings.. and let this one get back on track.

 

[Tom 1]

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:

Sure, apologies, it wasn't intentional. Just a result of using my phone while doing something else.

 

[Freodin]

Take a look at what you wrote:

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

You "basically" italicized the word "you". Made a "basic" statement.

So, if others are "missing" your points.. Maybe it's the fact that we cannot read your mind on what you are implying by your "basic" use of the English language.

Maybe either try harder... Or.... better still... start a thread with your lofty musings.. and let this one get back on track.

It should be quite easy. For someone with a tiny sliver of empathy, or imagination.

Just consider: what do other people "wish for"... and what will, in your view, happen to them.

What do you think happens to someone who "disagree with [Gods] basic teachings [and] don't wish to be near Him"?
Do you believe that they will happily live ever after for eternity, in a blissful world that is following their rules?
Or do you believe that they will land in some kind of "hell"... a place of "torment" or "despair", or at least not of happiness and love?

You are a Christian. Shall I guess what you believe? Might it be something along the lines of the second option?

And now: do you really think that this is what these people "wish"?

Just imagine: that you do not wish to accompany your parents to the cinema to see "The Sound of Music" for the twentieth times does not necessarily mean you wish to be locked up in the basement for the rest of your life.

 

[A_Thinker]

The only relevant point is that scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood. People disagree about what it means.

God gives us freedom in all things ... even to misunderstand.

That's given that "understanding" is, often, colored by our own prejudices and preferences.

Those with a heart to find the truth ... will find it. Those without such an intention ... will find something else ...

 

[Tom 1]

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'.

Sure, but there are a whole range of assumptions behind every part of that quote, and each of those has its own subset of assumptions. Not much can be said about how the quote relates to what it was said in relation to without first evaluating those assumptions.

 

[JacksBratt]

It should be quite easy. For someone with a tiny sliver of empathy, or imagination.

Just consider: what do other people "wish for"... and what will, in your view, happen to them.

What do you think happens to someone who "disagree with [Gods] basic teachings [and] don't wish to be near Him"?
Do you believe that they will happily live ever after for eternity, in a blissful world that is following their rules?
Or do you believe that they will land in some kind of "hell"... a place of "torment" or "despair", or at least not of happiness and love?

You are a Christian. Shall I guess what you believe? Might it be something along the lines of the second option?

And now: do you really think that this is what these people "wish"?

Just imagine: that you do not wish to accompany your parents to the cinema to see "The Sound of Music" for the twentieth times does not necessarily mean you wish to be locked up in the basement for the rest of your life.

What do you wish for....?

 

[46AND2]

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...

I'm not the one missing the point. The whole purpose of FB's logic statement was that many people contend that the Bible was written by an author who is infinitely superior to the authors of anything else that humans read.

And he is asking what does it say about this alleged author that the comprehension of what is written in the Bible is no better than anything else we read?

So when you compare the comprehension of the Bible as being just as "misunderstandable" as any other document, you are unwittingly admitting that the author of the Bible either, 1. Is not superior to any other author, or 2. Wants people to misunderstand it.

 

[Ophiolite]

God gives us freedom in all things ... even to misunderstand.

That's given that "understanding" is, often, colored by our own prejudices and preferences.

Those with a heart to find the truth ... will find it. Those without such an intention ... will find something else ...

Have a look at the second line of my signature. Responsibility for clarity in communication lies with the author, not the reader. The onus is on the writer to communicate unambiguously*. Now this can be very difficult for even the most erudite of humans, but it shouldn't be an obstacle to an omnipotent God.

*In order for the message to be clear the author needs to take account of the readers "own prejudices and preferences". That's why several of us are asking, why is the message so ambiguous that its meaning is disputed, sometimes violently, within the Christian Church?

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not the one missing the point. The whole purpose of FB's logic statement was that many people contend that the Bible was written by an author who is infinitely superior to the authors of anything else that humans read.

And he is asking what does it say about this alleged author that the comprehension of what is written in the Bible is no better than anything else we read?

So when you compare the comprehension of the Bible as being just as "misunderstandable" as any other document, you are unwittingly admitting that the author of the Bible either, 1. Is not superior to any other author, or 2. Wants people to misunderstand it.

Well, putting aside the idea (to avoid argument idea = opinion) that the bible presents itself as a collaborative effort, and doesn’t claim to be ‘written by God’, what would a ‘more understandable’ book mean? The idea has no apparent sense, perhaps you can provide that. Sure, an all powerful God could write some ‘mega-book’ perhaps that is understandable to him, perhaps that might be translated into something that could be understood by humans....oh, wait...maybe that’s what he did?

Or maybe not. The point is, how would you make something that is ‘more understandable’ to humans? With bigger letters? Are people actually capable of uniform understanding? Are people capable of understanding something they have never or barely read? How would it function? And more understandable to who? To this generation? To Moses’s generation? To meta humans in some distant future? Perhaps you could provide some clarity.

 

[A_Thinker]

Have a look at the second line of my signature. Responsibility for clarity in communication lies with the author, not the reader. The onus is on the writer to communicate unambiguously*. Now this can be very difficult for even the most erudite of humans, but it shouldn't be an obstacle to an omnipotent God.

*In order for the message to be clear the author needs to take account of the readers "own prejudices and preferences". That's why several of us are asking, why is the message so ambiguous that its meaning is disputed, sometimes violently, within the Christian Church?

Any expert in communication will affirm that it is two-sided. Not only must the speaker strive to communicate clearly and unambiguously, ... but the listener must be willing to hear the message being communicated, as much as possible, without allowing personal context to color the message.

That's why the nation can listen to Trump speak the same words, and yet come away with various interpretations.

An author/speaker does need to take account of the readers/ hearers "prejudices and preferences", but when one is speaking to a large group of varied individuals, it will be challenging, if not impossible, to do so.

P.S. Omnipotence, which may itself be a misunderstanding, ... only ultimately matters if the highest principle of the speaker is "power". If that is not the case, however, ... exercises which depend upon power can be sacrificed for exercises which depend upon some other personal aspect (i.e. Love) ...

 

[46AND2]

Well, putting aside the idea (to avoid argument idea = opinion) that the bible presents itself as a collaborative effort, and doesn’t claim to be ‘written by God’, what would a ‘more understandable’ book mean? The idea has no apparent sense, perhaps you can provide that. Sure, an all powerful God could write some ‘mega-book’ perhaps that is understandable to him, perhaps that might be translated into something that could be understood by humans....oh, wait...maybe that’s what he did?

Or maybe not. The point is, how would you make something that is ‘more understandable’ to humans? With bigger letters? Are people actually capable of uniform understanding? Are people capable of understanding something they have never or barely read? How would it function? And more understandable to who? To this generation? To Moses’s generation? To meta humans in some distant future? Perhaps you could provide some clarity.

It is alleged that the Bible is the sole chosen method of God's written communication. So you tell me. Is it inadequate? People these days can't even agree on how to get saved: is it enough to just believe? Must one also repent? Be baptized? Perform works? Speak in tongues? And they all have verses which seem to corroborate their position. Did people thousands of years ago have a better understanding? If so, was God only talking to them?

It's kind of the point of FB's thought exercise. What does all this say about the author's intent and/or ability? That was the question, and his responses from Christian's invariably focused instead on the audience.

 

[A_Thinker]

People these days can't even agree on how to get saved: is it enough to just believe? Must one also repent? Be baptized? Perform works? Speak in tongues? And they all have verses which seem to corroborate their position. Did people thousands of years ago have a better understanding? If so, was God only talking to them?

It may not be necessary that people agree on "how" to be saved. It may very be enough that people desire to be saved, ... and therefore, are ...

 

[46AND2]

It may not be necessary that people agree on "how" to be saved. It may very be enough that people desire to be saved, ... and therefore, are ...

Essentially, you just added another "how" to my list.

 

[A_Thinker]

Essentially, you just added another "how" to my list.

Perhaps it is just your way of "hearing" ...

 

[46AND2]

Perhaps it is just your way of "hearing" ...

Based on what you said, even atheists would be saved, so long as they had desire to be so...which, actually, is not an unprecedented Christian belief. There are even some who think literally everyone goes to Heaven.

 

[Tom 1]

It is alleged that the Bible is the sole chosen method of God's written communication. So you tell me. Is it inadequate? People these days can't even agree on how to get saved: is it enough to just believe? Must one also repent? Be baptized? Perform works? Speak in tongues? And they all have verses which seem to corroborate their position. Did people thousands of years ago have a better understanding? If so, was God only talking to them?

I don't see a lot of value in a discussion about it without agreeing on some relevant parameters and definitions. Without those it's just a random exchange of stuff people think about some surface readings, words about words. There are all kinds of things in the bible, Job for example is a philosophical book that in essence is similar to any other book of that sort. People read it and have different ideas about what it means, something that is part of the normal experience of being human. There are some basic ideas the majority of Churches subscribe to, summed up in the Nicene creed, so you can check that for a majority view.
There are different lines between 'mis'-understandings and different interpretations. There are a whole range of other things that can be understood fairly readily in terms of what they meant at the time they were written, so in my view anyway some of those things are misunderstood when they are manouevered into a modern context. There are other things which are simply a matter of opinion, or of personal expression, as Paul explains in his letters to Corinthians, others that have lost some of their initial sense over time, e.g. baptism was rooted in Jewish practices. The 'must do's' are listed and repeated frequently, and there aren't all that many of them. In all honesty while it may be time consuming, it certainly isn't at all difficult to find out about any of these things. You won't learn anything about it by diddling around with superficial word games on an internet forum however, assuming your purpose is to arrive at some kind of understanding of what your questions relate to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, but there are a whole range of assumptions behind every part of that quote, and each of those has its own subset of assumptions. Not much can be said about how the quote relates to what it was said in relation to without first evaluating those assumptions.

It's a very simple idea, basic 'food for thought'. If you don't like it, that's OK.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Those with a heart to find the truth ... will find it. Those without such an intention ... will find something else ...

That's the point - different people honestly believe they have found the truth - but they differ over what the truth is.

Each can say that, since they have the truth, they clearly have 'a heart to find the truth', and since those who differ don't have the truth, they clearly don't have 'a heart to find the truth'.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm not the one missing the point. The whole purpose of FB's logic statement was that many people contend that the Bible was written by an author who is infinitely superior to the authors of anything else that humans read.

And he is asking what does it say about this alleged author that the comprehension of what is written in the Bible is no better than anything else we read?

So when you compare the comprehension of the Bible as being just as "misunderstandable" as any other document, you are unwittingly admitting that the author of the Bible either, 1. Is not superior to any other author, or 2. Wants people to misunderstand it.

OK, gottcha... Now.. let's look at the claim... The author is infinitely superior.. Yet the bibles main and most important message is not misunderstood. It is only when mere mortals go digging into the vast levels of the bible, where it becomes quickly obvious that the author is Omniscient and of infinitely greater intelligence than any reader..
Thus, as a reader reaches the limits of their comprehension... they will misunderstand and confuse concepts.

This, of course, is the same for any literature.. Just so happens that the author of the bible is of infinite intelligence. The more you study, the more it opens up.

If I understand your complaint... would it be that this all knowing, all loving... eternal omniscient being should have wrote a book that was plain, simple and totally understandable?

Ask yourself again and then remember why you don't play Tic tac toe for years.. or why you read a normal novel once or twice but then no more...

We become bored and we need challenges to keep us digging and reading and researching....

In the end... it will all be clear... all will be revealed.. To the child, their simple questions and ponderings and such will be answered... To the intelligent scholar... the same thing.. things will all make sense when all is revealed.

Anyway... if you want to debate this more... Open a thread in the proper section.

 

[Tom 1]

It's a very simple idea, basic 'food for thought'. If you don't like it, that's OK.

Sure, it's simple enough as words written in relation to each other. But it refers to actual things, and makes a series of assumptions about them. A God, apparently not smart enough to realise that you can't 'make' people agree on anything, or even have a go at finding out about something. Whether you take God to be real or not doesn't matter, there is a character 'god' about whom a great deal is said and written. It assumes the existence of some hitherto undiscovered mechanism whereby people's basic nature as people can be bypassed and linked in some fashion to a universal understanding and acceptance of something that presumably they have all read with equal seriousness. And a whole series of other things. So no, it isn't simple, it would be simple if it referred to nothing else, or to an abstract idea, but it doesn't. It refers to actual things and makes a whole range of assumptions about them.