For Geocentrists

[AV1611VET]

Well, in a group of people as big as those frequenting these forums, you'll always get a handfull believing even the strangest stuff, I guess.

Like Jesus walking on water? or the virgin birth?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I do not know if this will mean anything to anyone, but in fact, the Bible does NOT declare as part of doctrine that the world is flat OR the center of the Solar System, Universe or much anything.

There are a few passages written in the late Stone Age/early Bronze Age that indicate the writer assumed so - like the 'corners of the Earth' and such. Most Christians - currently - are aware the Earth is NOT flat, nor the center of the Universe. Most, anyway. Yes, there are a couple on this forum, unless they're agents provocateur.

In much the same way, few actual scientists will claim to deny the existence of God. Most will say "There is no evidence to confirm or deny the existence of God, so no scientific determination can be made."

One could say, "I do not believe in God, as no scientific evidence exists to prove such an existence"; but that would leave the speaker open to the challenge to prove nothing exists without 'scientific proof'.

And I will admit, God does not appear in a test tube or equation at will. His existence is - as far as I can tell - impossible to prove by scientific inquiry in the normal sense of the word.

Just to set the record straight, the nonsense about

...willing to stone a child for talking back to a parent, nor condone slavery or rape or genocide... all those things have been "changed"...

is so much nonsense. Please cite a passage 'condoning' slavery, rape or talking back to a parent in context.

I realize this sort of idiocy gets repeated from various atheist 'sources', but still, they are evidence the originator either knows nothing of what he says or is simply lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not know if this will mean anything to anyone, but in fact, the Bible does NOT declare as part of doctrine that the world is flat OR the center of the Solar System, Universe or much anything.

There are a few passages written in the late Stone Age/early Bronze Age that indicate the writer assumed so - like the 'corners of the Earth' and such. Most Christians - currently - are aware the Earth is NOT flat, nor the center of the Universe. Most, anyway. Yes, there are a couple on this forum, unless they're agents provocateur.

In much the same way, few actual scientists will claim to deny the existence of God. Most will say "There is no evidence to confirm or deny the existence of God, so no scientific determination can be made."

One could say, "I do not believe in God, as no scientific evidence exists to prove such an existence"; but that would leave the speaker open to the challenge to prove nothing exists without 'scientific proof'.

And I will admit, God does not appear in a test tube or equation at will. His existence is - as far as I can tell - impossible to prove by scientific inquiry in the normal sense of the word.

Just to set the record straight, the nonsense about is so much nonsense. Please cite a passage 'condoning' slavery, rape or talking back to a parent in context.

I realize this sort of idiocy gets repeated from various atheist 'sources', but still, they are evidence the originator either knows nothing of what he says or is simply lying.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 KJV - If a man have a stubborn and rebellious - Bible Gateway

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like Jesus walking on water? or the virgin birth?

Let's forget the walking on water. It is fairly clear that the nativity story was made up after the fact. A mistranslation of a O.T. prophecy and a nonexistent poll pretty much put that myth to bed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's forget the walking on water. It is fairly clear that the nativity story was made up after the fact. A mistranslation of a O.T. prophecy and a nonexistent poll pretty much put that myth to bed.

I believe it though.

Isn't that the strangest thing you've ever heard?

And geocentrism has nothing on the Resurrection!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it though.

Isn't that the strangest thing you've ever heard?

And geocentrism has nothing on the Resurrection!

I have no doubts that you do. It is only one more thing that you are wrong about. Nothing new there.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

As I recall, you weren't the one who posted the silliness. This response is directed at the errant claim posted earlier.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (New English Translation)
[18]"If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, [19] his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. [20] They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.” [21] Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid."

So, for this to happen, the parents must get the agreement and approval of the elders at the gate of the city. (The reference to the 'gate of the city' indicates the elders are those who are men of local importance and respect who decide such things.) So the final decision did not rest solely on the parents. Also, note the wording indicating the accused is '...rebellious... glutton and drunkard...' That seems to rule out the accused being a 'child' in the modern sense.

Further, in Jewish society, parents were responsible for the harmful damage caused by their children. This was a way of demonstrating their good faith in trying to teach their sons the correct way to live in society. (Long absent from ours, I fear.)

So while I know it is an argument dear to the hearts of atheists - yes, I've heard this nonsense before - there is no direction to stone an eight year old for sassing. The accusation is bunk.

I'll wait for the citations showing endorsement for slavery and rape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I recall, you weren't the one who posted the silliness. This response is directed at the errant claim posted earlier.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (New English Translation)
[18]"If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, [19] his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. [20] They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.” [21] Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid."

So, for this to happen, the parents must get the agreement and approval of the elders at the gate of the city. (The reference to the 'gate of the city' indicates the elders are those who are men of local importance and respect who decide such things.) So the final decision did not rest solely on the parents. Also, note the wording indicating the accused is '...rebellious... glutton and drunkard...' That seems to rule out the accused being a 'child' in the modern sense.

Further, in Jewish society, parents were responsible for the harmful damage caused by their children. This was a way of demonstrating their good faith in trying to teach their sons the correct way to live in society. (Long absent from ours, I fear.)

So while I know it is an argument dear to the hearts of atheists - yes, I've heard this nonsense before - there is no direction to stone an eight year old for sassing. The accusation is bunk.

I'll wait for the citations showing endorsement for slavery and rape.

And yet it could easily apply to a 15 or 16 year old back then. I would still call that a child. The parents are also the ones listed as starting the action.

I will grant that it does not apply to an eight year old. It still looks pretty bad for the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And when people quote some of the ridiculous claims of the Bible it is only done to show that the Bible should not be taken literally Denying reality is always a bad plan when it comes to spreading a religion.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

And yet it could easily apply to a 15 or 16 year old back then. I would still call that a child. The parents are also the ones listed as starting the action.

Perhaps. Of course you understand a fifteen or sixteen year old male was considered a man at that time and in that society; he could get married and live on his own - as much as that happened. At fifteen or sixteen he was capable of being a glutton, drunkard and detriment to society.

I will grant that it does not apply to an eight year old.

Good work.

It still looks pretty bad for the Bible.

Only if the one to whom it looks bad champions the cause of young men running wild and acting without honor or decency. I'm sure this clause looks really, really terrible to many young gang members.

I still haven't heard from the rape and slavery supporters.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I still haven't heard from the rape and slavery supporters.

Would tacit non-comment suffice? Nowhere is rape or slavery - nowadays recognised as near enough the worst thing any human can do - condemned in the Bible.

Rapists are forced to marry their victims (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 22:16-17), presumably as an attempt to give the victim some semblance of a life, as their society would otherwise shun them as 'damaged goods' - but one wonders why God never simply stated "Rape victims aren't damaged goods", or something similar.

With regards to slavery, though male Hebrew slaves were commanded to be treated fairly* (Exodus 21:2-6), girls could be thrown around as sex slaves (Exodus 21:7-11), and foreign slaves were literally bought and inherited like property (Leviticus 25:44-46). The people-are-property nature of slavery is repeated in Exodus 21:20-21, where slave owners are permitted to beat their slaves.

While the Bible doesn't condone rape, it stands as a veritable how-to guide for slave owners. "It was their culture!" is a common counter-argument, which ignores the fact that God was supposed to be quite actively detailing laws and rules back then - if he took the time to outlaw the heinous practice of wearing clothes woven from two fibres (Leviticus 19:19), one wonders why he never took the time to say "Oh, guys, by the way - don't rape. Seriously, cut that out".

*If you consider it fair to hold a man's wife and kids hostage to forcing him to be your permanent slave.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps. Of course you understand a fifteen or sixteen year old male was considered a man at that time and in that society; he could get married and live on his own - as much as that happened. At fifteen or sixteen he was capable of being a glutton, drunkard and detriment to society.

Yes, that could be. That still does not warrant a death sentence. And he is still a child.

Good work.Only if the one to whom it looks bad champions the cause of young men running wild and acting without honor or decency. I'm sure this clause looks really, really terrible to many young gang members.

Or to anyone with a real sense of justice. Now perhaps you could do some good work and admit to some of the terrible flaws in the Bible.

[/quote]I still haven't heard from the rape and slavery supporters.[/QUOTE]

I see that Wiccan_Child has responded. Sadly you will probably try to justify that too.

The problem is that if God was a construct of man he would say things that were "justified for that time". If God was a real God he would be have morals that were simply correct.

I also see that Wiccan_Child did not go far enough. He was too nice. The Bible also plays favorites when it comes to slavery. It was easy to make non-Jews slaves for life in the O.T., but to make a Jew a slave for life you had to trick him into slavery. The Bible also tells you how to do that. Does that sound very moral to you? And please, no "justified for the times" nonsense.

 

[[serious]]

RichartT used to be one.

Recently another one just started posting here.

I can't remember his name.

I've been trying to remember his name for a while now, thanks!

 

[lesliedellow]

I've been trying to remember his name for a while now, thanks!

JacobLaw is one, Netzarim is another.

I thought it was jaw dropping enough that 40% of Americans think the Earth is 6,000 years old, but then I came across this:

http://www.livescience.com/43593-americans-ignorant-about-science.html

What is wrong with the American education system? Whatever it is, it needs fixing.

 

[AV1611VET]

JacobLaw is one, Netzarim is another.

Some astronomer, who wrote several scientific treatises, believed in geocentrism as well.

Ptolemy, I think, was his name.

 

[lesliedellow]

Some astronomer, who wrote several scientific treatises, believed in geocentrism as well.

Ptolemy, I think, was his name.

The ancient Greeks were geocentrists, but they were confronted by the fact that the planets seemed to move in anomalous ways. Ptolemy fixed the geocentric model by inventing epicycles. Much like astrophysicists today, if something appears to fix a problem, it is assumed to be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

The ancient Greeks were geocentrists, but they were confronted by the fact that the planets seemed to move in anomalous ways. Ptolemy fixed the geocentric model by inventing epicycles.

What a weirdo, eh?

 

[RealityCheck]

Slavery... from Leviticus. ..
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

 

[RealityCheck]

What a weirdo, eh?

No.

Like any scientist, he saw the conflict between empirical data and theory. He modified the theory to better fit the data, rather than saying "science can take a hike" and pretending the facts didn't exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like any scientist, he saw the conflict between empirical data and theory.

In other words, he contracted a case of cognitive dissonance?

He modified the theory to better fit the data, rather than saying "science can take a hike" and pretending the facts didn't exist.

I'd say he was a little hasty in his resolution ... wouldn't you?