|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2003 : 06:34:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.:
quote:
Not at all - the Earth just can't be absolutely planar. Lots of other shapes would allow for shadows from the Sun to make "night" as well as allow a person to see the entire world from a mountain top. But none of them are spherical.
So it can't be a flat circle like Slater says it is.
And in the Bible, such things as the power of God and the power of Satan are assumed true. Taken in context, the Bible makes no statement that would exclude the possibility of a spherical Earth.
Whether that context is scientifically accurate is another matter.
BTW, we can see the entire spherical world from a mountaintop simply by going up on a mountain and looking at a bunch of photos, so it's not impossible. |
 |
|
|
nukular
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 07:24:06 [Permalink]
|
Being new to this forum, I will take the liberty to supply and addition way of viewing the Big Bang. It is like explosions occurring everywhere all at the same time, without a nexus.
But to the point, in reading this thread and many of the previous ones, it seems like the discussion alway (predictably) descends into the question of biblical hermeneutics. Since this site is supposed to be somewhat educational, can anyone suggest readings which will assist interested (!) persons in a more critical discussion?
It seems that most philosophy of religion textbooks contain some small sections on this topic and Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?", while not strictly a hermeneutics book, presents a scholarly yet layman oriented guide to futher understanding of some of the strange features of the Old Testament (N.B. See Mack for the New Testament -- although his view is highly debated).
Also, I feel the need to pipe Kierkegaard into this discussion. His basic premise (in my view) was that belief needs to be irrational and that attempts to rationalize (via Pascal's wager or forcing "science" to justify that belief) are bound to end in failure, as well as ultimately undermine his notion of what belief really is. Historically, Kierkegaard's system of thought radically changed how many theologians perceived the notion of belief. What I find strange is that the current (and seemingly perpetual) drive to justify the literal interpretation through science completely ignores the healthy tradition that Kierkegaard started. |
| Edited by - nukular on 05/02/2003 07:24:58 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 09:10:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
So it can't be a flat circle like Slater says it is.
Slater is well aware of the actual shape of the planet we are standing on. The authors of the bible didn't even know it was a planet.
quote:
Taken in context, the Bible makes no statement that would exclude the possibility of a spherical Earth.
You supplied two statements from the OT both of which exclude a spherical Earth
quote:
BTW, we can see the entire spherical world from a mountaintop simply by going up on a mountain and looking at a bunch of photos, so it's not impossible.
So you are saying that Satan was showing Jesus his vacation photos from Waikiki on top of that mountain?
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 10:06:59 [Permalink]
|
Slater:
quote:
Slater is well aware of the actual shape of the planet we are standing on. The authors of the bible didn't even know it was a planet.
Sorry. I should have said "The Bible excludes the possibility of Earth being the flat circle Slater says it claims".
quote:
You supplied two statements from the OT both of which exclude a spherical Earth.
If you go out to sea ("the face of the waters") and look closely at the horizon, you will notice a very slight curvature ("a circle upon the face of the waters").
So neither of the passages I quoted exclude the possibility of a spherical Earth. However, they don't exclude the possibility of a hemispherical Earth either.
quote:
So you are saying that Satan was showing Jesus his vacation photos from Waikiki on top of that mountain?
Heh heh.
No, but it is possible that Jesus didn't literally look out and say "Hey there's the Mayans over there, and there's China, and there's the Incas over that way", that instead, Satan used his power to show Jesus images of these kingdoms.
Of course, this requires invoking miracles; however, in the Bible, miracles are accepted as true. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 10:24:58 [Permalink]
|
Hi, nukular! Welcome to SFN.
Hope you enjoy the discussion.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 12:58:51 [Permalink]
|
if you go out to sea ("the face of the waters") and look closely at the horizon, you will notice a very slight curvature ("a circle upon the face of the waters").
I was in the Navy thank you. You are mistaken, there is no "very slight curvature". Think about it and you will realize that that is impossible. It sounds though like you might have a stigmatism, better get that checked.
No, but it is possible that Jesus didn't literally look out and say "Hey there's the Mayans over there, and there's China, and there's the Incas over that way", that instead, Satan used his power to show Jesus images of these kingdoms.
Of course, this requires invoking miracles; however, in the Bible, miracles are accepted as true.
And a BCE version of the world and the universe are accepted as being true also. We have since learned that these versions are incorrect, which negates the bibles claim that god created the world and the universe.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 16:39:29 [Permalink]
|
Infamous wrote:quote:
Taken in context, the Bible makes no statement that would exclude the possibility of a spherical Earth.
Perhaps not, but it does make statements which suggest the Earth is not spherical.
quote:
BTW, we can see the entire spherical world from a mountaintop simply by going up on a mountain and looking at a bunch of photos, so it's not impossible.
Technically, we would not be looking at the entire spherical Earth, but at a bunch of comparatively low-quality simulacrums of the Earth.
Also, we are talking about Biblical literalism here, and that passage says nothing about photos, or Satan creating images, neither of which would require "a very high mountain" (in context, the other two places were necessary for some part of the temptation - even though it's a small sample size, I think it's safe to say that "a very high mountain" was necessary for proper viewing of "all the kingdoms of the world").
quote:
however, in the Bible, miracles are accepted as true.
So the Biblical answer should be something along the lines of "Well, Satan 'unrolled' the Earth for viewing at that moment. And God was earlier fiddling with the shape of the Earth and the construction of the upper atomsphere - hence all the screwed-up stuff that the people who wrote the Bible recorded." Nobody can possibly poke logicial or evidenciary holes in an argument like that, but it's not terribly satisfying, is it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 17:17:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Also, we are talking about Biblical literalism here, and that passage says nothing about photos, or Satan creating images, neither of which would require "a very high mountain" (in context, the other two places were necessary for some part of the temptation - even though it's a small sample size, I think it's safe to say that "a very high mountain" was necessary for proper viewing of "all the kingdoms of the world").
Well, the Bible says that Jesus only ate a few times during his lifetime, so he had to wonder around pretty hungry. So his sustenance had to come from God. And the Bible says Jesus said so. If you insist on such a literal interpretation you won't get anywhere, so why even bother?
I myself is perfectly happy with the idea that Satan activated his 3d-holographic projector to show Jesus a semi-transparent image of all Kingdoms of Earth at once.
If this scenario is only implied, I'm still happy with it. What's the point of being totally (whatever)? Accept that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, and then you'll have a great piece of fiction there instead. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/02/2003 17:20:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2003 : 18:42:54 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
If you insist on such a literal interpretation you won't get anywhere, so why even bother?
Right!
Literalists who choose to get their science from the Bible (and who therefore find a need to perversely question the ability of the Big Bang to create "ordered structures" - see the OP) won't get very far. Trying to force-fit science to the Bible (or vice versa) is a dead-end exercise as soon as you get to the first required "Goddidit, that's how." Once you get to that point, all pretense of doing science is lost.
Also, anything which the Bible doesn't say, but is offered as an excuse as to why the Bible doesn't match reality, is nothing more than apologetics, and made up by those doing the offering. 3-D holographic projectors, photos, or a temporary flattening of the Earth are all ad hoc hypotheses - completely unverifiable, but because they're 'possible' (within the context of omnipotent deities), we're supposed to take them seriously.
Which is more likely: these fabricated 'possibilities', or "the Bible is just wrong about some things"?
(That last question is not directed at you, Dr. Mabuse.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2003 : 15:56:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Which is more likely: these fabricated 'possibilities', or "the Bible is just wrong about some things"?
In true ICR style;
Deu 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word."
And there you have it!
Now if one f*&king fundie moans about me quoting out of context i'll kick the f*&king piss out of him. |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
