Flat Earth And Christianity

[JohnEmmett]

James May Witnesses Curvature of Earth

youtu.be/8OnJCqtTxsA?t=117

 

[Yaaten]

Lo and many a Christian believes all manner
of things that are untrue.
Usually it's ignorance though many
bitterly cling to moldy falsehoods from a
Issued sense of religious obligation,

I can't be so presumptuous as to claim to speak for anyone else, Christian or not, but I do know what I believe, and for every belief I have I have good reasons (even if no "proof" as so many online atheists seem to understand the term) to back up those beliefs. For example, I believe in, among other things:
1. The reality of my own existence.
2. The existence of an objective reality that will always be there regardless of whether or not there is anyone around to observe it.
3. The reality of the past.
4. The existence of other minds.
Now, of course it need not be pointed out that the above beliefs are not amenable to scientific verification, simply because they're not scientific concepts to begin with; they're philosophical ones.
I don't believe the Earth is flat, or that we're at the centre of the Solar System, or in any of the other erroneous notions that may have been popular thousands of years ago, and it's a mistake (a BIG one) to simply assume that because you believe the Bible says that bats are birds or unicorns exist (the notorious KJV) that therefore all Christians uncritically accept these erroneous statements. That just isn't the case.

 

[Yaaten]

The Bible is the only source for truth concerning God's creation.

This just isn't true. There is so much more we know about reality that was simply not possible to know when the Old and New Testaments were written. For example, the writers of that text believed the moon to be a luminous object (ex. in Genesis 1 - "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also"), the "lesser light" generally believed to be a reference to the moon, but of course we now know that the moon reflects the light of the sun, and doesn't generate its own.

For some strange reason many Christians seem to take every word of the Bible literally, even though it's clear to anyone who is impartial that this is simply the wrong approach to take.

 

[Yttrium]

This just isn't true. There is so much more we know about reality that was simply not possible to know when the Old and New Testaments were written. For example, the writers of that text believed the moon to be a luminous object (ex. in Genesis 1 - "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also"), the "lesser light" generally believed to be a reference to the moon, but of course we now know that the moon reflects the light of the sun, and doesn't generate its own.

For some strange reason many Christians seem to take every word of the Bible literally, even though it's clear to anyone who is impartial that this is simply the wrong approach to take.

FYI, d taylor has been quite adamant in these forums that the moon does generate its own light.

Example: Moon it's own source of light

 

[Yaaten]

FYI, d taylor has been quite adamant in these forums that the moon does generate its own light.

Example: Moon it's own source of light

Well, he's wrong, because it's a well-established fact that it doesn't, and simply insisting it does will not do anything to change that.

 

[d taylor]

This just isn't true. There is so much more we know about reality that was simply not possible to know when the Old and New Testaments were written. For example, the writers of that text believed the moon to be a luminous object (ex. in Genesis 1 - "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also"), the "lesser light" generally believed to be a reference to the moon, but of course we now know that the moon reflects the light of the sun, and doesn't generate its own.

For some strange reason many Christians seem to take every word of the Bible literally, even though it's clear to anyone who is impartial that this is simply the wrong approach to take.

But it is true, you just proved it with your post, stating that the moon reflects the suns light, a scientific lie.
If you are a believer, why would you believe anything stated about God's creation coming from
satan's government kingdoms and pagan science.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Google earth has a number of uninterrupted images back to back that span the earth, so if the earth is flat ... you gotta ask ... where are the teleporters?

 

[Yaaten]

But it is true, you just proved it with your post, stating that the moon reflects the suns light, a scientific lie.
If you are a believer, why would you believe anything stated about God's creation coming from
satan's government kingdoms and pagan science.

It isn't - is NOT - a "lie". It's the truth. The moon isn't a star, it isn't (because it cannot be) luminous like the sun.
And science isn't "pagan", it's a method of enquiry, a tool that anyone can use.

 

[d taylor]

It isn't - is NOT - a "lie". It's the truth. The moon isn't a star, it isn't (because it cannot be) luminous like the sun.
And science isn't "pagan", it's a method of enquiry, a tool that anyone can use.

I never said the moon is a star, the moon is the moon, just like the sun is the sun and is also not a star. Stars are stars and are not suns or moons. There are three created type lights God created as stated in The Bible, the sun, moon and stars.

 

[Estrid]

I can't be so presumptuous as to claim to speak for anyone else, Christian or not, but I do know what I believe, and for every belief I have I have good reasons (even if no "proof" as so many online atheists seem to understand the term) to back up those beliefs. For example, I believe in, among other things:
1. The reality of my own existence.
2. The existence of an objective reality that will always be there regardless of whether or not there is anyone around to observe it.
3. The reality of the past.
4. The existence of other minds.
Now, of course it need not be pointed out that the above beliefs are not amenable to scientific verification, simply because they're not scientific concepts to begin with; they're philosophical ones.
I don't believe the Earth is flat, or that we're at the centre of the Solar System, or in any of the other erroneous notions that may have been popular thousands of years ago, and it's a mistake (a BIG one) to simply assume that because you believe the Bible says that bats are birds or unicorns exist (the notorious KJV) that therefore all Christians uncritically accept these erroneous statements. That just isn't the case.

I did say "many".
Points 1-4 all have plenty of data to indicate
they are quite real. "Verify", meaning what if not
that?
Any "online atheists" or religionists as
ignorant re "proof" in science need to
improve themselves.

As to "believe the Bible" , what  does that
mean?

It's more like " everyone believes (in)
himself" being his ability to know what
the bible actually says.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think it's flat and I don't understand why Christianity doesn't hold that belief as well.

Well, I think its round, I think the Bible makes it clear the Earth is round, it is also clear that the early Church Fathers understood the Earth to be round, as this was a known fact in the Greco-Roman civilization, and we should admire God’s Creation for what it is rather than idealizing it.

 

[Yttrium]

I never said the moon is a star, the moon is the moon, just like the sun is the sun and is also not a star. Stars are stars and are not suns or moons. There are three created type lights God created as stated in The Bible, the sun, moon and stars.

But by "stars", you include things like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc, right?

 

[The Liturgist]

This just isn't true. There is so much more we know about reality that was simply not possible to know when the Old and New Testaments were written. For example, the writers of that text believed the moon to be a luminous object (ex. in Genesis 1 - "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also"), the "lesser light" generally believed to be a reference to the moon, but of course we now know that the moon reflects the light of the sun, and doesn't generate its own.

For some strange reason many Christians seem to take every word of the Bible literally, even though it's clear to anyone who is impartial that this is simply the wrong approach to take.

Actually, if we read Genesis 1, it is the only religious text which can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Big Bang, the formation of the universe and the planets, and the evolution of life, as now understood by science, which I regard as a holy miracle. No other religious tradition even comes close to being able to be used as a metaphor for what science teaches when it comes to their story of how the universe came into existence.

You could not, for example, use the creation myths from Shinto or Taoism or Hellenic Paganism or the Meso-American religion as a narration to a montage depicting the formation of the universe, the planet and the origin of life, whereas this works extremely well with Genesis 1.

 

[The Liturgist]

Google earth has a number of uninterrupted images back to back that span the earth, so if the earth is flat ... you gotta ask ... where are the teleporters?

Actually even then teleporters would not work with the Flat Earth model unless they somehow teleported you through time while both exceeding and not exceeding the speed of light, because the interconnecting pieces could not be arrayed in such a matter where teleportation alone would work as a means of providing surface continuity, because even if you could magically teleport people who are on flights in the Southern Hemisphere which take dramatically less time than predicted by the Flat Earth model, the lack of a strong gravitational field such as is provided by the spherical Earth would cause us to float into space, but beyond that, if we dig into the science, what actually makes gravitation work is the gravitational time dilation between the Earth’s core and where we are. The fact that our feet age more slowly than our head when standing up right is literally what prevents us from floating up into outer space.

 

[Estrid]

Well, I think its round, I think the Bible makes it clear the Earth is round, it is also clear that the early Church Fathers understood the Earth to be round, as this was a known fact in the Greco-Roman civilization, and we should admire God’s Creation for what it is rather than idealizing it.

The bible clearly says many opposite things,
as it may suit readers with opposite ideas.

 

[Estrid]

Actually, if we read Genesis 1, it is the only religious text which can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Big Bang, the formation of the universe and the planets, and the evolution of life, as now understood by science, which I regard as a holy miracle. No other religious tradition even comes close to being able to be used as a metaphor for what science teaches when it comes to their story of how the universe came into existence.

You could not, for example, use the creation myths from Shinto or Taoism or Hellenic Paganism or the Meso-American religion as a narration to a montage depicting the formation of the universe, the planet and the origin of life, whereas this works extremely well with Genesis 1.

" close to a metaphor" is a pretty dim connection

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If the earth was round and flat there would have to be a center and a perimeter. Concentric circles would get bigger . What we actually find is that once the equator is passed the circles (lines of latitude) get smaller. So distances of very southern landmarks are closer on the globe than they would be on a flat model.

 

[d taylor]

But by "stars", you include things like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc, right?

Yes, the creation only entails the sun, moon and stars

 

[JohnEmmett]

…

 

[The Liturgist]

" close to a metaphor" is a pretty dim connection

Yes it is, but to be clear I am not asserting that Genesis 1 is close to a metaphor, rather I am asserting that no other religion has a creation story that could come even close to being a metaphor, in contrast to Genesis 1, which far from being a metaphor, predicts the Big Bang, the formation of planets, the evolutionary sequence, and other things to a remarkable degree.