Is your theology liberal?

[GitRDunn]

Actually it rotates on its axis. One revolves around the other.

edit - I suppose there are sources to support both terminologies.

No, you are correct with your first statement. Something rotates on its own axis while it revolves around something else. There's no flip-flopping of terms allowed there, its just the simple definitions of the words.

 

[Papias]

The Fijian wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

OK, you've convinced me! I see the light (undistorted by Ralley's burger scattering)! Yours and Mallon's posts are so good as to be practically Poetic!

Do you mean po(e)-etic?
​

Yes, the capitalization was intended as a subtle clue.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

No, you are correct with your first statement. Something rotates on its own axis while it revolves around something else. There's no flip-flopping of terms allowed there, its just the simple definitions of the words.

I don't know. What do revolving doors revolve around?

 

[Willtor]

I don't know. What do revolving doors revolve around?

The center pole.

 

[gluadys]

The center pole.

Which is their axis, right?


Another example is the vinyl record whose rotation speed was measured in rpm's (revolutions per minute).


IOW I think the two terms overlap somewhat in meaning.

 

[GitRDunn]

Which is their axis, right?


Another example is the vinyl record whose rotation speed was measured in rpm's (revolutions per minute).


IOW I think the two terms overlap somewhat in meaning.

Perhaps in layman's terms they sometimes overlap in meaning, but in reference to astronomy, they always have their distinct meanings (which is what I thought we were talking about).

 

[Siyha]

If we define Liberal as "new", then creationists believe the earth itself is liberal and evolutionists believe it is conservative.

So which is it? Do we live in a liberal world or a conservative world? If we can prove our world to be very liberal, then the creationists are right, but if we live in a conservative world then the evolutionists are right.

We finally have an acurate litmus test for the age of the earth, not confined by the parameters of "science".

 

[Willtor]

If we define Liberal as "new", then creationists believe the earth itself is liberal and evolutionists believe it is conservative.

So which is it? Do we live in a liberal world or a conservative world? If we can prove our world to be very liberal, then the creationists are right, but if we live in a conservative world then the evolutionists are right.

We finally have an acurate litmus test for the age of the earth, not confined by the parameters of "science".

It's been liberal (in increasing measure) since the Fall. So, while it may have been billions of years old when Adam and Eve walked the Earth, it has been de-aging for a long time, as conservatism gradually disappears. Now it's down to about 6000. In a few years, there won't have been a literal flood.

 

[theFijian]

If we define Liberal as "new",

Why would you do that?

 

[Jazer]

There are verses in the bible that explain that the sun, moon and stars are fixed in the firmament above.

So my question is, do you interpret it the same way or do you have a liberal theology about this where you understand it in a different way?

We are kind of at the mercy of Science to explain to us the "firmament above". There is so little information in the Bible about it. We can learn a lot more from Science about the atmosphere around the earth, then what we learn from the Bible. The Bible is just a standard we can use to be sure science is telling us the truth.

 

[Jazer]

In a few years, there won't have been a literal flood.

It happened in Japan that they did not pay attention to the warnings from their ancestors:
"Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis.
Do not build any homes below this point."
Tsunami-hit towns forgot warnings from ancestors

 

[Mallon]

We are kind of at the mercy of Science to explain to us the "firmament above". There is so little information in the Bible about it. We can learn a lot more from Science about the atmosphere around the earth, then what we learn from the Bible. The Bible is just a standard we can use to be sure science is telling us the truth.

So you're saying that we should re-interpret our model of the atmosphere in light of the Bible's description of the firmament as a solid dome above a flat earth?

 

[Jazer]

So you're saying that we should re-interpret our model of the atmosphere in light of the Bible's description of the firmament as a solid dome above a flat earth?

I am saying just the opposite. Science can help us to come up with a better interpretion of the Bible. The flat earth theory comes from science not the Bible. It is also a prank developed by the flat earth society. The idea that Christians claimed the earth is flat is a myth.

 

[Mallon]

I am saying just the opposite. Science can help us to come up with a better interpretion of the Bible. The flat earth theory comes from science not the Bible. It is also a prank developed by the flat earth society. The idea that Christians claimed the earth is flat is a myth.

The Bible describes a flat earth and solid firmament. That's not a myth. It's a demonstrable fact.

 

[Greg1234]

Literal is a confusing word. I like to take what Gluadys gave to me a while ago: the first meaning of a word in a dictionary is its literal meaning. If so, the meaning of a word given by dictionary will be non-literal in most cases.

So, if people asked me about literal understanding of the Bible, I would simply say yes first, then if chances are given, go ahead to debate about "various" ways of literal interpretation. This will blow the mind of philadiddle away. How could I be literal and non-literal at the same time?

The thing is that even with an interpretation, Darwinism is not implemented. The laws in place governing the nature of life are extensive and Paul briefly outlines it in 1 Corinthians 15:39

All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

​

In recognition of the fact that matter is a reflection of, obeys, was birthed by and is subjugated by spirit those laws are applied to life as it appears to physical man. Given that alone, the proposition that man can arise from microbes is preposterous. It is not in the literal interpretation of the bible, it is not in metaphorical interpretation of bible, it isn't in a bible read from atop a fridge, from under a bed, or on a tightrope. In fact, one of the most extensive interpretations you may find on the internet comes from Bible Meanings Home and even there you find the creation of the "Celestial" man and the "external" man.

Texts deal with origins and depict a past with metaphysical elements. Physical science, which cannot recognize metaphysics, want to theorize about origins. Inevitably they clash.

Additionally, according to the principle of linear progression man advanced from a state of ineptitude to scientific supremacy since his conception. You have God which was evidently as commonplace to the ancients as the air you breathe. But physical science cannot grasp it. By comparison, given the present vacuous state of suspension, the ancient concepts must either be behind physical science in a state of primitiveness or it must be ahead of it outside its scope. According to Darwinism man could never have been more advanced than today, so God must be a primitive concept. From there texts are debased in order to exemplify symptoms of ADI (Ancient Darwinian Ignorance).

 

[Willtor]

I am saying just the opposite. Science can help us to come up with a better interpretion of the Bible. The flat earth theory comes from science not the Bible. It is also a prank developed by the flat earth society. The idea that Christians claimed the earth is flat is a myth.

No it isn't. Many Christians held that the Earth was flat -- on the basis of Scripture -- for the first few centuries. Lactantius is a well-known advocate of a flat-Earth. And Christians talking foolishly about a flat-Earth (from the perspective of Scripture) were one of main the reasons St. Augustine wrote "The Literal Meaning of Genesis."