Flat Earth? Not Far From The Truth.

[Messenger 3k]

I try to describe how it is for me, from my perspective.

The aim is to understand. Else, why bother talking?

The question was, how do you help them understand?

There's only one truth, but many lies.

There's only one reality, but many perspectives. So I don't care about perspectives.

If you want perspectives, see Google. If you want reality, see God's word.

Which do you want?

 

[Messenger 3k]

you have such contempt for science how do you reconcile using all it's benefits, like computers and internet?

Pretty easy:

It's all good if it doesn't contradict my faith.

 

[Lost4words]

Out of this thread. My head is spinning already!

 

[Messenger 3k]

I said that the Earth is described metaphorically, as in having "four corners" ...

Four corners is not used in every mention of earth in scriptures.

It refers to the four cardinal points.

How is that a metaphor?

 

[Messenger 3k]

Out of this thread. My head is spinning already!

Apologies!

That's the spinning ball effect.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Out of this thread. My head is spinning already!

Me too. Some people believe anything.


"Up and down
And in the end it's only round and round
and round and round"

 

[A_Thinker]

Four corners is not used in every mention of earth in scriptures.

No ... it is just an example of the metaphorical language used when describing the earth in the scriptures.

It refers to the four cardinal points.

Are you arguing that the "four corners of the earth" is not a metaphor ?

What exactly do you mean when you say the "four cardinal points" ?

 

[Messenger 3k]

Some people believe anything.

Exactly!

I mean. A ball earth?? Spinning and flung through space like a slingshot??

Who would believe such??

 

[Messenger 3k]

Are you arguing that the "four corners of the earth" is not a metaphor ?

I am not arguing. I am stating plainly; that is not a metaphor. It is a primitive, archaic reference to the four cardinal points.

What exactly do you mean when you say the "four cardinal points" ?

North, East, West, South.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The aim is to understand. Else, why bother talking?

Sure, I'm trying to understand you even now, but you are refusing to communicate.

There's only one truth, but many lies.

How do you sift the truth from the lies?

Which do you want?

At the moment, all I want is to know why you think "We do not test God's word, through things".

If you don't test something, how do you know it's truth and not a lie?

 

[A_Thinker]

I am not arguing. I am stating plainly; that is not a metaphor. It is a primitive, archaic reference to the four cardinal points.

North, East, West, South.

Those are directions.

The point is that it is not literally descriptive of the earth. It's our day-to-day experience of the earth.

 

[Ophiolite]

I mean. A ball earth?? Spinning and flung through space like a slingshot??

Who would believe such??

Only someone rather shallow and lacking curiosity, happy to believe any nonsense they were told.

An informed, inquisitive, sceptical peson would accept the best explanation currently available for a mutiplicity of observations, confirmed and validated by tens of thousands of tests and millions of daily experiences. They would accept a spinning sphere moving in ellipical orbit about a star, in a universes of many stars. No belief necessary.

The thinking person would see no conflict between the nature of the universe as determined through such observation and investigation, with its nature, as described in words that could be comprehended by a pastoral people lacking advanced knowledge about the nature of the universe.

Insisting upon a literal interpretation of words designed for that culture is an insult to those people and to one's own intellect. I'm OK with the latter, not impressed by the former.

 

[Messenger 3k]

Those are directions.

Point. Direction. Same thing in the context.

 

[Messenger 3k]

If you don't test something, how do you know it's truth and not a lie?

1. In order to test a thing, you need a reference, a standard, a yardstick.

2. In order to have a standard, the standard must first be accepted.

If we can't get past 2, we can't get to 1.

Now 2, is where you're stuck.

 

[A_Thinker]

Now 2, is where you're stuck.

Who's stuck ???

 

[Messenger 3k]

Only someone rather shallow and lacking curiosity, happy to believe any nonsense they were told.

An informed, inquisitive, sceptical peson would accept the best explanation currently available for a mutiplicity of observations, confirmed and validated by tens of thousands of tests and millions of daily experiences. They would accept a spinning sphere moving in ellipical orbit about a star, in a universes of many stars. No belief necessary.

The thinking person would see no conflict between the nature of the universe as determined through such observation and investigation, with its nature, as described in words that could be comprehended by a pastoral people lacking advanced knowledge about the nature of the universe.

Insisting upon a literal interpretation of words designed for that culture is an insult to those people and to one's own intellect. I'm OK with the latter, not impressed by the former.

Lol.

This is a perfect example of someone perambulating in circles from point A to arrive back at point A; and then arguing that point A is in fact point B.

 

[Messenger 3k]

Who's stuck ???

Not me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Lol.

This is a perfect example of someone perambulating in circles from point A to arrive back at point A; and then arguing that point A is in fact point B.

The only circles I am wandering in are the ones followed by our planet, in its daily turns and annual orbits.

In case you missed my opening point, I consider beliefs the refuge of the insecure, the unquestioning and the dull. People who unquestioningly accept the findings of science are just as worthy of scorn as those who unqeustioningly accept the claims of F.E. enthusiasts. They are to be pitied. On the other hand those who argue against the evidence based upon an indiosyncratic reading of scripture are to be condemned.

 

[topher694]

A sizable number of scriptures show, if anything, earth is not a spinning ball.

There are zero such scriptures

We test all things (including science), through God's word.

That is an incorrect and out of context application of that scripture. And, even if it were your first statement would fail that test.

 

[essentialsaltes]

1. In order to test a thing, you need a reference, a standard, a yardstick.

To measure something, perhaps. But to test something may depend on what kind of a thing it is. 'Can this bridge support the weight of 10 cars?' Well, you can drive 10 cars onto it and reality will tell you the answer quite plainly.

I mean probably civil engineers have reference books that tell you so and so much concrete of such and such a kind and weight limits. But....

What if you built the bridge exactly according to the reference, but it failed when there were 10 cars on it? You might conclude that there was an error in the reference, or possibly the error was in your understanding of the reference book, but you never would have known that if you hadn't tested it.

Now 2, is where you're stuck.

I'm not stuck. I'm doing just fine thanks. I was just hoping to learn why you think "We do not test God's word, through things".
If it's faulty, or your understanding of it is faulty, you're never going to find out if you take that kind of attitude.