 |
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2013
03:29 PM ET
A Christmas apology, and the seeds of hopeOpinion by Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN
I’m sorry that this season has become about fights over manger scenes on public property, about complaining when clerks say, “Happy Holidays,” instead of “Merry Christmas,” about rampant commercialism and faux persecution. I’m sorry that Christians in the United States can be so entitled when we’ve long enjoyed majority status, when we can be so blind to our own privilege. It is ironic, really, because in the church calendar, the seasons of Advent and Christmas call us to reflect upon and celebrate what Christians believe was the most radical act of humility of all time - the incarnation. The doctrine of the incarnation holds that the God of the universe, in his love for humanity, emptied himself of his power and became human, like us, in the form of Jesus. The word incarnation literally means “to make into flesh” and refers to the apostle John’s teaching that “(t)he Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). “No one has ever seen God,” John explains, but Jesus “has made him known.” In other words, if you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus - Jesus, who was born as an oppressed minority in an occupied land, Jesus who was an immigrant, Jesus, who surrounded himself with the poor, the sick, the marginalized and the “untouchables,” Jesus who was criticized by the religious for hanging out with sinners, Jesus who treated women with dignity and respect, Jesus who taught his disciples to love their enemies, to give without expecting anything in return, to overcome evil with love, Jesus who suffered, Jesus who wept, Jesus who - while hanging on a Roman cross - said, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Quaker theologian Elton Trueblood put it this way: “The historic Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ does not simply mean that Jesus is like God. It is far more radical than that. It means that God is like Jesus.” It means that God suffers, God forgives, God fellowships with the poor, God cares for the sick, God loves His enemies. Even as a lifelong Christian, I struggle with doubts about God. I struggle to make sense of the violence in the world, the violence in the Bible, the violence in my own heart. I don’t have all the answers. But even when there’s nothing left to my faith but a little seed of hope, that hope is in the incarnation, in the radical teaching that God loved us enough to become like us, and that when God wanted to show us what he was like, God showed us Jesus. Rachel Held Evans is the author of "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" and "Evolving in Monkey Town." Evans blogs at rachelheldevans.com, and the views expressed in this column belong to her.
Next entry »CNN Poll: Pope's approval rating sky-high
« Previous entryThe Pope's secret strength: The freedom to be Francis
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
(CNN) - This week we celebrate Christmas, and as a Christian, I want to say I’m sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ
..
My explanation here describes the difference between theory and tangible reality regarding 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional.
You can depict 2-dimensional objects ONLY in theory. In tangible reality, all objects are 3-dimensional.
For example: a circle has two dimensions, xy, in theory; however, to create an object in tangible reality in the form of a circle, e.g. ring, disc, etc., it actually has three dimensions, xyz.
A sphere is 3-dimensional, in theory and in tangible reality. Touching a sphere at one point translates to touching an instance of the "the circle" form of that sphere. By concept, and in theory, the form of that circle is 2-dimensional, xy, while in tangible reality, it has a depth, z, which makes it a 3-dimensional object, that is a circle with a depth.
Except you're wrong.
You can't touch a circle. You can touch something that's circular. You can't touch a sphere. You can touch something that's spherical. A circle is a mathematical 2D construct, not in theory, that's what it is...ditto for a sphere, not to be confused with physical objects in reality. Your post exemplifies the tendency, make that the intentional use of, playing fast and loose with terminology to conflate the abstract with the actual. To use your words the tangible with the intangible. Not surprising since you also need this trick to make any connection between the abstract concept of God and reality.
That is a big leap of faith for an atheist who believes in what cannot be seen (belief in nothing according to your own posts) to assert my God is an abstract when in fact the reality we both know is saturated with the effect and affect of God (real or imagined). When we say God is that should be self evident to anyone that does not live in denial.
Tell me again how your reality has not been impacted by a belief in God and keep in mind your opinion of God does not change reality.
Nope. Reality, or more appropriately the minds of people, are saturated with the "belief" that God has affected or effected it. And where have I ever said that I believe in nothing?
Atheist Steve
You said you have no beliefs regarding the supernatural (events or entities) when it comes to causation or the vast unknown.
Reality including homosexual marriage, abortion, morals, end of life, contraception, American Presidents required to state a belief in God etc. is the reality we live in. What saturates your mind or my mind does not change reality until external action takes place which alters or becomes reality. Reality thus reflects 10,000 years of belief. Reality thus reflects the power of God (real or imagined is another topic) in creation. The Bible claims the power of God is self evident through creation. We have proof which is the reality we exist in that this claim made is true. If our reality was not saturated with the affect of belief then we would have proof that the Bible does not present the living God. Now, tell me exactly how God presence is not alive in your reality. Unlike Zeus who never was God is and always has been based on all available written history of mankind (evidence of worship). Your rejection of God is unreasonable.
@fred
I'm just going to respond to you here instead of on the other thread since we're talking about the same thing.
First of all, it is pretty darn ridiculous of you to dismiss one deity as false or made up when that is the very thing you offer up as an object of worship. Secondly, no deity and I mean absolutely no deity, has come down and proclaimed itself to the mas-ses. I'm not talking about some random select few, I'm talking we, the people of the world. If you speak of a perfect deity that can supposedly do anything and its message is covered with parables, or is open to wildly different interpretations, or it can't bring its message to all the people, all the time, I find the claim suspect.
The reality that you speak of, also speaks to no belief, belief in other deities, belief in dead ancestors, belief in animal totems, belief in the power of rabbit's feet. If you really want a supernatural explanation of the causality of present occurences, you would have to go back and figre out what the very first actual person to come up with one thought. That would be the root cause, the supernatural belief from which all other supernatural beliefs evolved. That still wouldn't make it true, though.
You also have to consider what you are actually saying. If we look at the reality in nature and try to say there is a deific causation for it, then what does that really say about this deity? Well, we can say that it admires the strong, has no patience with the weak and favors those that murder to survive. Does it care about love? Nope. Does it have morals? Nope.
Damocles
"First of all, it is pretty darn ridiculous of you to dismiss one deity as false or made up when that is the very thing you offer up as an object of worship."
=>Zeus was a man made object formed from created matter by man whereas God is not of known substance. Yes, I can dismiss Zeus as even an atheist can see this object was created by man. The best Moses could do was to speak of a burning bush and a radiance he could not bear when hidden behind a rock as God passed by. The best Isaiah could do was to speak of a burning holiness. On a scientific note it is thought that creation of time and space cannot come from that same dimension of time and space or the general theory of relativity would collapse. Although that is not proof of God it is simply reason to believe causation (if one assumes causation) was from something we cannot or do not know anything about (pre big bang cosmology is anyone's guess).
"Secondly, no deity and I mean absolutely no deity, has come down and proclaimed itself to the mas-ses."
=>that would be the anti-Christ who will proclaim self in a manner the masses can and will embrace.
"you speak of a perfect deity that can supposedly do anything and its message is covered with parables, or is open to wildly different interpretations"
=>that was the intent and a deity can do as a deity will do. Now, God was and is revealed through creation as that is the only way we can begin to understand God. Science would have us believe bio diversity was an explosion of evolved organics. That would appear to be one aspect of creation we observe, the end result of which is wildly different interpretations (expressions) of Protein Synthesis. We each see things slightly differently regardless if we are addressing God or the moon. Your suggestion that we limit creation or diversity to objective constructs reduces creation to fixed predictable laws. God does not fit into those laws as God is not limited by anything. Man in the image of God does not fit into those laws because we are creative and our artistic expressions are what makes us very different from animals.
=>as to parables I do not find them difficult to understand at all and neither do you. The intent is not to confuse but to allow your "God image" to present itself which it does every single time. That is the Divine nature of the Word which make the Bible stand above all holy books.
"The reality that you speak of, also speaks to no belief, belief in other deities, belief in dead ancestors, belief in animal totems, belief in the power of rabbit's feet. If you really want a supernatural explanation of the causality of present occurences, you would have to go back and figre out what the very first actual person to come up with one thought. That would be the root cause, the supernatural belief from which all other supernatural beliefs evolved. That still wouldn't make it true, though."
=>Correct and by the same logic the theory of evolution approaches the root and that does not make it true there is no god needed.
.
ok, interesting, most of the employees in my lab somehow believe that because of evolution and the nebular hypothesis etc, there is no supernatural necessity to explain anything. When you think about it the no god needed belief is just another belief without proof of anything when attempting to answer the question why existence in the first place.
Damocles
"say there is a deific causation for it, then what does that really say about this deity? Well, we can say that it admires the strong, has no patience with the weak and favors those that murder to survive."
=>What? That is the exact opposite of God as revealed through thousands of years in recorded Hebrew history and certainly the opposite of the revelation of God as presented through Christ. I am not aware of any of the minority religions that even think that way.
Kim
Yes, and for all recorded history man seeks an object of worship. The root Damocles sees is that longing or hope we have. Man will fill that with God or make something else up.
@Hur: You are a stupid literalist.
When one has nothing left except for an ad hominem, they are left with an empty sack they try to pass off as logic.
<
"an empty sack they try to pass off as logic."
That sounds a lot like willful ignorance.
I can see how religious belief and belief in an existence after this life has ended would be a big advantage for a civilization. It would provide superior discipline required for victory in battle against an opposing civilization. Almost every surviving civilization has these beliefs. Ironic that survival of the fittest has selected for these kind of belief systems. They are superior to straight up realism.
Of course that doesn't make those beliefs true, they can't be. Many of the survivors have different Gods and beliefs. The only question is, are any of then true? Evidence says no. There may be a God or bunches of them, but not any of the man made Gods we've invented to date.
@bostontola : The only question is, are any of then true? Evidence says no.
What evidence are you referring to here?
<><
The factual errors in every accounting of creation in every religion. The errors of fact and omission. In the case of the bible, the immoral elements of slavery, injustices of punishment of the innocent, etc.
@bostontola : The factual errors in every accounting of creation in every religion.
I'm looking for specifics, not generalities.
<><
L4H
Evolution, Big Bang, geology, paleontology, and more show that the creation myth is not correct. The creation myth is the god's credentials. No credentials, no god.
How does any of that actually disprove the existence of God?
@Kev
It wouldn't disprove a deity, necessarily... if that had been the story from the get-go.
The times I went to church and heard the creation story it was always 'the deity spoke and everything appeared' not 'the deity spoke and some things appeared and then later on changed form as they adapted to their surroundings'. It was always 'in the beginning there was nothing' not 'in the beginning there was some stuff that the deity gathered together to make other things'. Six days meant six days, not some nebulous term that believers are now trying to hammer into saying really means billions of years.
We all need a little bit of illogic and impossibility to ponder to expand our horizons. If you want to take it literally and dismiss it then that's all you'll ever get out of it. If you want to take it as a tool to examine your own thoughts you'll get a little bit more. Look at the clouds, are they condensed hydrogen and oxygen or do you see a happy puppy chasing a ball and it inspires you to get a pet? It's up to you.
You have your plans, God has His.
We all need a little bit of illogic and impossibility to ponder to expand our horizons. If you want to take it literally and dismiss it then that's all you'll ever get out of it. If you want to take it as a tool to examine your own thoughts you'll get a little bit more. Look at the clouds, are they condensed hydrogen and oxygen or do you see a happy puppy chasing a ball and it inspires you to get a pet? It's up to you.
A little bit of "illogic and impossibility"–sure. We call this "Fantasy". We all have them, but the important thing is to understand what it is. If the vast majority took the Bible as just stories–myths–it would probably be totally harmless. That's not how the vast majority of Christians view their Bible. They are either literalists–about 40% in some polls–a number way too big to sweep aside, or they cherry-pick their Bible, and discard those things which cannot withstand moral or logical scrutiny, but continue to embrace the core of the myth, and believe God is objectively real and intercedes through prayer. In other words, continue to cling to beliefs that are demonstrably false.
The problem is the continuing embrace of this myth as if it were indeed objectively real continues to cause our society a lot of problems.
Thanks.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm
Stupid, stupid Christians.
You are a stupid literalist.
So are 98% of the Christian posters here.
And what's your point? Does it take away from my initial statement? No, it does not.
My point is that Christians are stupid literalists also. Do you have a problem with thought connection?
Only why you think your lame attempt at switching the focus might actually work.
The commentor I was referring to is a stupid literalist. Your comment had nothing relevant to do with it. Go play somewhere else kid.
Sorry you can't follow a thread. Not my problem.
Troll elsewhere, child.
Cute that you call me a troll when it was you that decided to step in and defend the other commentor, who is probably you anyway using another username. Not that it matters any. You obviously have nothing to add that is relevant to the initial comment and want to attempt to throw christians into the mix for some ego boosting reason that makes no sense to rational people.
Christians make most other people look smart in comparison with them. Good to throw some Christians into the mix for that reason.
Or it shows a lame attempt by the opposition to belittle a group to make their position look better. It would behoove them to learn how to explain their position instead of tearing at the other side like a child.
@What?? : My point is that Christians are stupid literalists also. Do you have a problem with thought connection?
Your point was to change the subject. A very poor tactic in a debate, as it shows your weakness.
<><
If the bible is not literally true, it can't represent truth. There are as many interpretations as there are readers. That's nice for a piece of literature, but not the basis for a life commitment.
"If the bible is not literally true, it can't represent truth."
I disagree. You are mixing truth is facts. They are not the same thing. The Bible maybe not 100% factual but that does not mean there is no truth within.
"That's nice for a piece of literature, but not the basis for a life commitment."
One could say that about anything one might commit their life to. The Bible is not unique in that regard. A person's life is their own and as an individual, it is up to them to decide what is or is not important in their life. Who can stand as the objective viewer and dictate otherwise?
Live: except I really didn't change the subject; the subject was literalists, which Hur brought up, and Christians, which the OP brought up.
Hur: I didn't call you a troll.
Lycidas
"The Bible maybe not 100% factual but that does not mean there is no truth within."
There must be truth in there, but in all the important stuff there is nothing that can be verified and most has been disproven. I'm sure some places and people are real, but again there is not much to indicate that the main characters are real.
@Lycidas
You have touched on what is, for many, the crux of the problem. I don't care what a person believes, they are welcome to their choices. I do care about what they might do in the name of that belief. That goes for any belief.
"..........This entire website in a Capsule:
1- Why Islam?........................"
Ok HAHA's, have at it.
Atheists don't believe in any gods. Too difficult for you to grasp?
Atheists have other beliefs that they cannot begin to prove. being atheist does not mean you are immune to having faith in some concept or person.
Umm, could you state one such belief?
Atheism is merely the ABSENCE OF A BELIEF in a god, you stupid, stupid twit.
Faith is faith. Does it matter if that faith is in a god or a loved one? In a spirit or a code of conduct?
Athiests moan and groan about faith. It's a hollow argument when they only aim it at something specific like religion.
@Boris,
"Atheism is merely the ABSENCE OF A BELIEF in a god..."
That's not the traditional definition of atheism. But going with your definition...
Is my neighbor's dog an atheist?
Is my desk and atheist?
Is the bottle of water on my desk an atheist?
Is the tree outside of my house an atheist?
Is dirt an atheist?
@Paul
a·the·ism [áythee ìzzəm]
n
unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
What's your traditional definition say?
The OP references a muslim site. Not ambidextrous or did yer right arm cause you to sin and you cut it off??
Damocles,
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. It's not an absense of a belief as Boris stated.
Boris, Paul,
You are both right and both wrong: atheism can refer to either.
Oxford Dictionary
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Paul
You're splitting hairs really. I would not even consider a god if it were not established in society inherited from our ancient ignorant ancestors. I feel that theism has not proven its case and relies on relics from our superstitious past. It has been compared to considering not collecting stamps as a hobby.
@Damocles
from m-w.com
atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
disbelief
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Boris is being disingenous with his defintion of athiesm. It's defintiely not an absense of belief. He is mentally rejecting God.
swat tteam,
"...........both right and both wrong........." Those Big Tents are sprouting everywhere. HHHHmmmm, AC/DC.
You silly as.ses can't just go around declaring your definition is correct. There are books upon books using the word in both ways and the fact you aren't aware of this just shows your ignorance. Language is socially constructed and the word means (is used to refer to) BOTH THINGS. Get out and do some reading and then come back and join the conversation.
@Observer : Please tell us which word is spelled L-I-N-E in this biblical quote: "God sits above the circle of the earth.”
The term 'circle' is from the Hebrew word chung (a verb). See my reply to Pete for more details.
chuwg { חוּג }
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass
@Pete : it states "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness."
Lets translate it into simple English: A boundary encircles the earth where the light and darkness meet. Now, the bolded part of the sentence is the basic concept, so lets discard the latter description. Thus, we have:
Subject: choq { חֹק } : boundary
choq { חֹק }
1e) prescribed limit, boundary
Verb: chuwg { חוּג } encirclement
chuwg { חוּג }
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass
Direct Object: the Earth
paniym { פָּנֶה }
1e) face, surface (of ground)
So, the circle applies to the verb, not the subject nor the object.
Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness.
<><
Use the reply button, dumbass.
Why are you so intolerant?
Really, why can't you use the reply button? Seems a valid question, even if Morris was rude about it. You make a mess of the blog when you queue jump like that, and it seems just gutless what you did.
Asking you to keep the thread intact for continuity's sake by correctly using the reply feature is not being intolerant.
@Kathy : Really, why can't you use the reply button? Seems a valid question
IF you bothered to review the forum, I DID use the reply button. However, when a given thread becomes long, it is difficult to follow, find the appropriate reply button, etc. Furthermore, it usually means that more than one conversation is going on – which implies that a new thread is appropriate and necessary. Generally, if more than one poster is replying to me on a given thread and it exceeds the limit where the 'Reply' button is immediately above, it is time to split the conversation out to a separate thread. The confusion is started by multiple opponents swarming one target – impolite and difficult to follow.
<><
@doobzz : Asking you to keep the thread intact for continuity's sake by correctly using the reply feature is not being intolerant.
What continuity? One defender, multiple attackers and subjects? There is none. Continuity would imply only two people on a thread – the defense and the prosecution. Anyone else eliminates continuity. If you bother to look, the only time I split a thread is because of 1) multiple posters, or 2) passage of time (i.e. a break in the discussion). Thus, there is no continuity. Just consider this one thread – 4 or more posters all jumping on the thread.
<><
L4H, You often do not use the Reply link.
L4H,
If you want to start a new conversation, don't start it using quotes from other people as you almost always do. This is pretty much the prototypical example of taking a quote out of context. If you do feel the need to break into a completely new conversation but want to use the quotes, provide a link to the original at a minimum. However, given the CNN change to allow nested conversations there should rarely, if ever, be a need to do this. As mentioned below your tendency to ignore these social norms raises serious questions about your motivations for breaking the threads.
Again, you didn't comprehend my post. You called someone intolerant for asking you to use the reply feature. That is not being intolerant.
But instead, you pick something irrelevant from my comment to drone on about.
if you do those types of things they can permanantly block your ip address from participating on the cnn blogs. Trust me.
@Observer : So in this quote "God sits above the circle of the earth.”, you are claiming that the word "circle" is a verb. Incredible. First, problems with math and now problems with English grammar. Please get real.
You seem confused. The Bible was written in English, so English grammar doesn't apply. Rather, Hebrew grammar would apply (albeit similar rules apply). The critical part is what were the original Hebrew words that were translated. So, lets consider an alternative translation to help you comprehend the meaning.
God sits above the encirclement of the earth.
What is this encirclement? Of course! The encirclement that was mentioned by Job.
Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness.
<><
USE THE REPLY BUTTON L4H, YOU STUPID ASS HOLE!!!
Why are you so intolerant?
L4H, while I agree that wording was a little harsh, you largely bring that on yourself by regularly breaking up conversations against the norms of online discourse in general, and those on this site in particular. Aside from losing track of the original conversation, it gives the very definite impression that you think your words are so important that you'd sacrifice an ongoing conversation to share your pearls of wisdom with all newcomers. In other words...it's just plain rude and insulting to those you are talking to. It's no different than glancing at the door for more interesting people while talking to someone at a party.
@ L4H
He's not being intolerant, but you're being an egotistical asshole for continually starting new threads instead of replying within the thread you're making a comment on. You've been called out for it on a daily basis.
God defines faith and how one gets it. Don't like it HAHA's?? Lump it.
Carne Asada with corn tortillas and a cold Dos Equis for this HAHA, please.
more beer? that does fly with pepperoni, and i mean fly!
Gotta know how to hold 'em.
you gotta be strong!
Peter prophesied that this erroneous view would be adopted in the last days by scoffers—men walking after their own lusts—who imagine that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." The apostle Peter goes on to write, "For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (vv. 5–6).
In other words, the plain teaching of Scripture is that this world’s history has not been one of uniform natural and geological processes from the beginning. But according to the Bible, there have been at least two global cataclysmic events: creation itself and a catastrophic worldwide flood in Noah’s time. These would sufficiently explain virtually all the geological and hydrological features of the earth as we know it.
"Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy, and the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience."
The actual geological evidence shows there has been no global flood and the flood described in the bible would require nearly twice as much water as our planet contains, unless of course you have a genie in a bible that conjures trillions of gallons of water and then makes it vanish a month later. Of course that same genie would be required to stop the sun in the sky (which of course would make sense only if you believed the sun circled the earth and not the other way around) without considering the problem with inertia.
If everything were leveled out – if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in – the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
If we know there are supernatural miracles, then we can take the creation theory as a sin theory, and we don't have to have all the answers, but it is fun and intriguing to wonder. I encourage you not to think that a million years disproves God.
The speed of light and the atmosphere, or something in space like a binary quasar, which could accelerate the speed of light, could throw your calibration off, or decay rates. none of us were there. the exciting thing about spiritual evidence is that it is being dished out by Holy Spirit.
That is the brainy response? A level planet without plate tectonic movement? And I thought Austin had the lowest IQ here, guess I was wrong... OR is that you Austin?
@Or...so the world just magically melted to conveniently level the playing field so God could flood it?? And afterwards everything just morphed back??
Grasp at straws much??
@Or Not : That is the brainy response? A level planet without plate tectonic movement?
When one has nothing left except for an ad hominem, they are left with an empty sack they try to pass off as logic.
<><
@What?? : so the world just magically melted to conveniently level the playing field so God could flood it?? And afterwards everything just morphed back??
Lets use a little critical reasoning skills here. If we assume that the earth was basically flat at its creation and then a world wide flood occurred as described in the Bible (i.e. waters rising from the deep), then this would imply that forces were pushing those waters out of their historical cisterns. This would lead to geological changes which we call plate tectonics today – pushing up mountains and deep valleys in the oceans.
<><
And that's not what it was suggesting, was it?
*What OR was suggesting.
@L4H – I don't see how laughing at someone who believes the earth was ever just a completely flat sphere is ad hominem. Anyone who makes a claim as silly as that should be mocked. If we do not mock those who believe in a flat earth or a smooth globe in order to fit their global flood theorys that have been debunked by geologists and the scientific community, we risk having our children growing up with pure idiocy as an educational alternative. I'm just glad that nutjobs are being relegated to the backwaters of the internet due to actual education, logic and reason being accesable for every child, even those of moronic evangelicals waiting for God to whisk them away to some other reality. This generation will not be following their parents, we are just in the middle phasing out period where the children feel bad about telling their parents they think they are full of sh!t so their parents still think religion has a chance. I'm here to inform you, religion was fatally wounded by the worldwide access to education a decade ago, it's just still holding it's slit neck spewing gore around the world as it thrashes about in its final death throes.
@Or Not : I don't see how laughing at someone who believes the earth was ever just a completely flat sphere is ad hominem.
I guess you lack the ability for logical associations. Thus, I'm wasting my time posting to you. Bye.
<><
L4H
"Lets use a little critical reasoning skills here. If we assume that the earth was basically flat at its creation and then a world wide flood occurred as described in the Bible (i.e. waters rising from the deep), then this would imply that forces were pushing those waters out of their historical cisterns. This would lead to geological changes which we call plate tectonics today – pushing up mountains and deep valleys in the oceans."
The earth was once covered with water before the geological changes – but that was billions of years before humans evolved. The bible specifically says that the water came in the form of rain. So the bible is wrong.
So, basically flat? Like, how flat? Smooth, featureless flat, meaning no mountains, valleys, or any other substantial geological feature? Was the earth much bigger back in the day and as the waters retreated they etched out mountains millions of years old 2000 years ago?
Damocles, yep, that's pretty much what L4H and many of the other Biblical fundamentalists believe. They have some cute diagrams and stuff on their websites.,
I'm sure a nice person, and probably intelligent when discussing something other than religion or science. But I have to tell you honestly, this is a ridiculous notion. The kindest thing that can be said about it is that it has not the slightest bit of evidence to support it, and in fact all the geological evidence is contrary to this idea.
To be frank with you, and I don't mean to be condescending or rude, but if you suggested this idea in a room of professional geologists, they would all be laughing, some probably rolling on the floor. You may have been better off just saying that God did it somehow with his magic. At least then we would be spared the mental image of a pair of giant hands patting the earth smooth just so that he could flood it.
Dandintac, I watched this hashed out a few months ago. It doesn't matter what geologic realities you present L4H, he/she will stick with the theory to ridiculous ends. If you've never seen delusional reconstructions you might want to go a few rounds.
Sara,
Thanks for the feedback. I think I've got that figured out about L4H now. Believe me, I harbor no illusions about any hopes of getting through to that particular person. I do this because I enjoy it, but also because there are other people reading and keeping track of the debate–some of whom CAN be reached. Years ago when message boards first appeared in the 90s, I got into an intense political debate. I tried to get through to someone I thought was reasonable, but after shooting every last bolt I had, I still did not penetrate. However, another person, whom I had thought unreachable, thanked me. He let me know he had read the whole exchange, and that I had totally changed his thinking.
I will never get through to L4H–nor will you or any of the rest of us–no matter what evidence we have, or what evidence they lack. After all, they have an armor of "faith". But to remain silent is to acquiesce, and there are those people who will jump on the bandwagon of whatever side in a debate that seems to have supremacy–especially if there is no opposition. By speaking out, we help create a safe space for people to reject these dominant belief systems.
I have no idea who are the worst literalists, the christians or the atheists. I swear the latter defends the literal translations more than the former.
Questioning the validity of a literal translation is not defending it. Either you believe the bible or you don't. Picking and choosing which are to be taken literally and which are not makes the whole thing suspect. Especially when the change from literal to allegorical comes after a scientific discovery.
Genesis was believed literally until scientists could describe DNA and genetics. Now it's an allegory or a creation story. Yet there are still Christians fighting to get it taught in public school science classes as fact. The earth is a circle, but now that we know it's a sphere, suddenly "circle" means "sphere", it is just a mistranslation. Noah and the ark was a true story until science proved it's impossible, now it's maybe true, maybe not.
How do you know which is allegorical and which is literal? Why does it keep changing?
@doobzz : The earth is a circle, but now that we know it's a sphere, suddenly "circle" means "sphere", it is just a mistranslation.
I've covered this already and don't intend to repeat myself. Circle is a verb.
<><
You missed the point of my post, so you don't have to get all put out about repeating yourself. Whatever your rationalization was about circle/sphere/noun/verb isn't relevant to my comment, so I really couldn't care less about it.
You've got a pretty lofty opinion of yourself if you think I should have read and remembered some random past post of yours.
"I have no idea who are the worst literalists, the christians or the atheists. I swear the latter defends the literal translations more than the former."
On this blog, yes, that's probably true. I think many Bible literalists probably shy away from forums like this, because it might pierce their bubble. But they are out there, and in large numbers. Some polls say 40% of Christians are literalists. That's a number too large to ignore. So it's not like we are arguing against a phantom target. There are also congressmen who openly quote the Bible when making the laws that we all have to live by. So it is a legitimate point of argument.
Furthermore, why would you not take the Bible literally if you believe it? Why be a selective literalist? Do you believe it–or not? If some of it can be swept under the rug by labelling it "metaphor" or "allegory" or whatever–then why don't we just understand that it is pretty much ALL myth? This selective literalism is a defense mechanism, for intelligent and otherwise reasonable Christians to disregard the patent absurdity in their Holy Book, as well as the truly ugly intolerance and immorality, but still cling to the religion as a whole. Many Christians in the west practice humanistic values that arose out of the Enlightenment, but then wrongly credit Christianity for their morality.
You need to confront your Bible as it really is–not as you want it to be. The extremists who will bomb buildings and shoot doctors arise out of the ranks of the moderates, and the moderates will usually turn a blind eye to them until it's too late, and then will demand that their religion not be blamed–they weren't "true Christians".
Thanks
(Matt. 4:8) “Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”
That is THEORETICALLY possible with a flat, circular (disc) earth, but IMPOSSIBLE with a sphere.
if God shows you something, more often than not, it's not with your eyes.
Good point.
You are so right... it wasn't my eyes hurting...
Jesus, and the Devil, are omnipresent and eternal. This kind of reasoning cant be understood within a human limitation.
i take it back the devil is not omnipresent, but He is not constricted to a body, he is present everywhere on earth, i think
"i think"
I find that hard to believe...
Why does everyone have to take me so litteral? Sometimes I want to spout facts, sometimes just feelings and opinions, othertimes I pontificate about prophecy in very hard to understand but easy to misinterpret terms. Should I have labeled those things I meant litterally and the others I meant figuratively? If I had many people who have gotten the right idea about me and been able to understand my message easily and I just can't have that. I need to be mysterious and magical while also claiming absolute fact divinely given. If you fall on your face in the dryest desert but I claim you are soaking wet in an ocean, someone must see how I could mean you are just sweaty in a "sea" of heat and sand... right?
It is a collection of books....
...letters...songs...poetry...
testimonies....genealogies....history....laws....
and parables
I may be a collection of books but I am supposed to be the divine thoughts from a single deity, so any errors within either mean I am not the word of God or that the God who inspired me is'nt all powerful and perfect, which would mean he's not much of a God at all...
The Psalms are not divine thoughts from a deity. The authors are human beings who write about God. Some include questions and doubts about God.
Vic give it a rest. You are going down in circles.
im confused because there is sand in the ocean.
You could have just left it at "i'm confused..."
The Bible, there is an old saying, you can't sharpen a knife on butter. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it does it make a sound? I know the sound waves vibrate so it does, right? Well what if none of reality exists, go ahead, imagine it, it's okay nothing bad will happen. If you didn't want to philosophize you wouldn't be on here posting about philosophy.
May be it vibrates the air but if there is nothing to decode it then how can a sound be developed.. you do not see TV signals until you have the right receiver..
Uhhh maybe "Satan" had a flat circular disk (saucer) waiting....*cough..Pleiades...cough*...
Or you know there is always a non literal interpretation like maybe this was a parable describing that there is nothing in the world worth giving up your own values. But never mind parables, I'm sure if it was in there it was meant to be taken literally.
Vic,
A POINT has no dimensions. A CIRCLE has TWO dimensions. Try again.
You are WRONG, sir!
That's only true in theory BUT NOT tangible reality. Everything in tangible reality is 3-dimenssional.
You do not want to open that can of warms!
Vic,
Please tell us if you can find ANY difference between 2 squares drawn on a piece of paper and two DICE.
Simple:
Assuming both squares have the same xy dimensions (note that x=y in a square,) the difference would the depth/thicknes of the dice and the depth of the paper, aka z dimension (note that x=y=z in a cube, hence dice.)
Simple:
Assuming both squares have the same xy dimensions (note that x=y in a square,) the difference would the depth/thicknes of the dice and the depth/thickness of the paper, aka z dimension (note that x=y=z in a cube, hence dice.)
Vic,
Right. Squares are 2-dimensional like circles are and dice are 3-dimensional like spheres are. Because of the differences, we study PLANE geometry separately from SOLID geometry.
Which is the difference between in tangible reality and theory.
In tangible reality, it is impossible to determine a unit, it goes to infinity.
Which is the difference between theory and tangible reality.
In tangible reality, it is impossible to determine a unit, it goes to infinity.
Which is the difference between theory and tangible reality.
In tangible reality, it is impossible to determine a unit, it goes to infinity.
In other words, in tangible reality, it is impossible to achieve z=0!
Vic
"Which is the difference between in tangible reality and theory"
Tangible reality: the earth is a SPHERE
Theory: the earth is a circle as the Bible says
It's fascinating to hear your argument that basically says that God who created the earth, doesn't know it's a sphere and not a circle.
See, that's the problem, that's why I said "you don't want to open that can of warms1"
No, it is you who cannot grasp the difference. What the Bible describes as the circle of the earth would be an instance of the circle of the earth in theory while it is a 3-dimensional circle of the earth in tangible reality, and an instance one as well.
We do the same exact thing with everything we design in this physical reality.
See, that's the problem, that's why I said "you don't want to open that can of warms1"
No, it is you who cannot grasp the difference. What the Bible describes as the circle of the earth would be a 2-dimensional instance of the "circle of the earth" in theory while it is a 3-dimensional instance of the "circle of the earth" in tangible reality.
We do the same exact thing with everything we design in this physical reality.
One of my favorite blog quotes here was "Religion is for the ignorant, the gullible, the cowardly, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them."
Vic sure falls into the stupid category there.
Practical Illustration:
Take a physical sphere and cut a circle from the middle as thin as possible, you end up with a 3-dimensional circle of the that sphere.
One of my favorite blog quotes here was "Religion is for the ignorant, the gullible, the cowardly, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them."
Vic sure falls into the stupid category there.
vic,
"it is a 3-dimensional circle of the earth in tangible reality"
This is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a 3-dimensional circle. It shouldn't be this hard for you to comprehend basic mathematical definitions. It shouldn't be so hard to understand BASIC PLANE geometry and BASIC SOLID geometry.
Please read some math books and then come back. Good luck.
Oh, that's precious!
Math and Geometry are two different things, just so you know. We are strictly speaking Geometry here!
Here is a challenge for the wonderers, show me any object in reality that has z=0.
Another wonderful practical illustrative example: an actual ring (a circle) has three dimensions in reality, xyz.
One of my favorite blog quotes here was "Religion is for the ignorant, the gullible, the cowardly, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them."
Vic sure falls into the stupid category here.
Vic give it a rest. You are going down in circles. Going down.
For the new onlookers:
My explanation here describes the difference between theory and tangible reality.
You can depict 2-dimensional objects ONLY in theory. In tangible reality, all objects are 3-dimensional.
For example: a circle has two dimensions, xy, in theory; however, to create an object in tangible reality in the form of a circle, e.g. ring, disc, etc., it actually has three dimensions, xyz.
This discussion is not about the Bible anymore, since it became about concepts of Geometry. A sphere is 3-dimensional, in theory and in tangible reality. Touching a sphere at one point translates to touching an instance of the "the circle" form of that sphere. By concept, and in theory, the form of that circle is two-dimensional, xy, while in tangible reality, it has a depth, z, which makes it a 3-dimensional object, that is a circle with a depth.
We don't have to burden ourselves with such details in everything, it is just pointing out a technicality that was brought up.
Vic, If you look at string theory and M theory you'll see that 1 and 2 dimensional objects may exist in a real way. Either way none of this justifies the errors in the bible.
@Pete : That is NOT the original translation.
What are you talking about? There is no such thing as an 'original translation'. Rather, there is the original language (i.e. Hebrew).
<><
sorry, wrong place.
Why can't the earth be a circle?
A circle is a two-dimensional object. Two-dimensional objects are geometric models, rather than reality. In reality, all observed objects are three-dimensional – height, width and depth. That depth could be a micron deep or it could be larger. However, it would still be a three-dimensional object. This is why the earth cannot be described as a circle. Instead, it is describes the boundary between light and darkness as a circle. Boundaries are two-dimensional objects.
Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness.
<><
Yes. The earth is NOT a circle like the Bible said.
No math student would ever pass by claiming it is.
@Observer : Yes. The earth is NOT a circle like the Bible said. No math student would ever pass by claiming it is.
Perhaps your confusion reflects your reading comprehension skills (or lack there of). Why would you insist that a two-dimensional object be applicable to a three-dimensional object?
<><
Furthermore, the circle reflects the line drawn, not the object the line was drawn upon.
Live4Him,
"Why would you insist that a two-dimensional object be applicable to a three-dimensional object?"
Beats me. Why would you claim that the earth is a flat circle like the Bible says when it is 3-dimensional?
“God sits above the circle of the earth.”. What is YOUR reading comprehension problem? Is English your native language? There are an infinite number of circles on the earth.
Draw a picture of the Earth as seen from the perspective of the moon.
You would probably draw a circle.
@Observer : Why would you claim that the earth is a flat circle like the Bible says when it is 3-dimensional?
The Bible states that the LINE is a flat circle, not the object the line is drawn upon. You're confused between the subject and the direct object of the sentence.
<><
Reference: Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness.
"Draw a picture of the Earth as seen from the perspective of the moon.
You would probably draw a circle."
Nope, I would draw a sphere.
You can't draw a sphere. You can shade it to make it look spherical, but it is still a circle shape.
"Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness."
Nope, it states "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness."
Live4Him,
Please tell us which word is spelled L-I-N-E in this biblical quote: "God sits above the circle of the earth.”
"Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness."
Most bibles do not say this instead it's a version of "He has delimited a boundary over the surface of the oceans as a limit between light and darkness."
Got to love it when Christians have to lie to try and sell their god.
@Pete : Most bibles do not say this instead it's a version of "He has delimited a boundary over the surface of the oceans as a limit between light and darkness.
How well do you read Hebrew? I'm guessing not at all. However, the term that's been translated as 'delimited' signifies a circular shape (i.e. inscribed a circle) This Hebrew word is chuwg and the definition is below.
chuwg { חוּג }
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass
<><
Hey! The Hebrew characters DID come through! 🙂
Thanks for demonstrating you have no clue what that verse is actually talking about.
@Pete : Thanks for demonstrating you have no clue what that verse is actually talking about.
Well, you're definitely no Bible Scholar. Can't even read the ancient languages.
<><
"Well, you're definitely no Bible Scholar. Can't even read the ancient languages."
And you still have no clue what that scripture is actually about. LOL!
Austin
well, they could see the moon couldn't they? what about the other verse about the seal and the scroll?
December 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Report abuse |
Austin
the verse i am talking about was a reference to the earth spinning on its axis.
@Observer : Please tell us which word is spelled L-I-N-E in this biblical quote: "God sits above the circle of the earth.”
The term 'circle' is from the Hebrew word chung (a verb). See my reply to Pete for more details.
chuwg { חוּג }
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass
@Pete : it states "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness."
Lets translate it into simple English: A boundary encircles the earth where the light and darkness meet. Now, the bolded part of the sentence is the basic concept, so lets discard the latter description. Thus, we have:
Subject: choq { חֹק } : boundary
choq { חֹק }
1e) prescribed limit, boundary
Verb: chuwg { חוּג } encirclement
chuwg { חוּג }
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass
Direct Object: the Earth
paniym { פָּנֶה }
1e) face, surface (of ground)
So, the circle applies to the verb, not the subject nor the object.
Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness.
<><
Live4Him
So in this quote "God sits above the circle of the earth.”, you are claiming that the word "circle" is a verb.
Incredible. First, problems with math and now problems with English grammar. Please get real.
Austin
Job 38:12, 13,14
God gave Job a 77 question science test. Job could not answer them ch 38, 39 40
Have you commanded dawn to know its place? dawn from space wraps around the earth "like clay under a seal"
they had clay cylinders, and the wrote on them. and they pressed clay words into them and rolled them into the clay like a wheel in an axle, they would roll it into the clay, like an ancient printing press "takes on form like clay under a seal" that is how they wrote, it was something that would roll "rotate"
Just agreeing with your point.
That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Look at the dimensions given in the above verses. There are 12 dimensions.
The other dimensions are in the unseen realm – the realm of the spirit.
Yeah, well, I don't want to try to explain them to atheists. They get confused on 2 vs. 3 dimensional objects 😉
Regarding the FLAT circle.
That's why I called it "grasping at straws" and left it at that. 🙂
Goodnight, and thanks for representing.
We can all google and find whatever answer we want.
no we can not Google the answer or the definition for answer will come up, and that would be the wrong answer. you have to Google the question. you would not Google an answer if you had it allready.
I can search google and see arguments that support a round world and arguments against a round world via the Bible.
The atheist sites say it is not round.
The Christians say it is round.
nobody is adding anything new to the conversation.
I could have googled all of this.
well, they could see the moon couldn't they? what about the other verse about the seal and the scroll?
the verse i am talking about was a reference to the earth spinning on its axis.
Job 38:12, 13,14
God gave Job a 77 question science test. Job could not answer them ch 38, 39 40
Have you commanded dawn to know its place? dawn from space wraps around the earth "like clay under a seal"
they had clay cylinders, and the wrote on them. and they pressed clay words into them and rolled them into the clay like a wheel in an axle, they would roll it into the clay, like an ancient printing press "takes on form like clay under a seal" that is how they wrote, it was something that would roll "rotate"
1. When you look down from out of space what shape do we see? A square like the shape of the maps that have been used from the earliest of time or a circle?
2. And when is a circle not a circle, what ever kind of circle it might be?
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Where is your god, to clear up the matter?
For most of history, science and religion have rubbed along just fine.
Yep. Science frequently claims that the sun and moon suddenly STOP.
When did religion make that claim. Or was it just one religion, not all?
(Joshua 10:13) “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”
OK. How many religions believe that? All?
Also, if there is something like a god or gods that aren't limited by our understanding and knowledge of the universe, couldn't they stop the world?
Observed,
Yes. There are an infinite number of possibilities for how the world got here.
I would say that there are not an infinite number of possibilities, because there are not an infinite number of possibilities.
Austin
"I would say that there are not an infinite number of possibilities"
Please list some IMPOSSIBILITIES.
basically, Adam walked with God, and it was impossible for him not to know. same with Moses, or people with spiritual gifts.
They know that through spiritual gifts that there is eternal life, one can draw that conclusion because God has always provided the answers . its that easy. but trusting God, and remaining faithful and righteous, that is different. Faith is sustained by God, or we would have proof and then failed.
The church never encouraged the view that the earth is flat.
Nor has anyone on here ever asked me to believe that.
It's the Bible that says the earth is a FLAT circle.
No. No it doesn't.
It doesn't.
And the only person I hear proclaiming that is you.
@Observer : It's the Bible that says the earth is a FLAT circle.
The Bible states that the LINE (between light and dark) is a flat circle. However, that flat line is on a three-dimensional object.
Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness.
<><
Topher, Observed and others:
(Isaiah 40:22) “God sits above the circle of the earth.”
Please read a Bible SOMEDAY.
Doesn't say "flat" anywhere in that verse. So ... you're reading what you want into it. Bad Hermaneutic.
Topher
"Doesn't say "flat" anywhere in that verse. So ... you're reading what you want into it. Bad Hermaneutic"
Please take a beginning course in basic mathematics. A CIRCLE is FLAT. It is 2-dimensional. Bad math student?
It has NOTHING to do with math and everything to do with appearance.
"and everything to do with appearance."
A circle and a sphere are different in appearance, the fact you don't know that means you need to go back to school.
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to Scripture.
Did he need more schoolin'?
Topher
"It has NOTHING to do with math and everything to do with appearance."
You didn't do well with math, did you? Get a DICTIONARY and look up the word.
Do you see ANY difference between 2 squares drawn on a piece of paper and two dice? ANY difference to you?
Observed,
Anything to avoid the Roman Inquisition and the heresy charge.
In Santa we trust
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
"As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable."
What are you blabbering about?
Galileo was a witch!
Observed,
The truth. I know you have trouble with that.
I'd love to hear your explanation of why a heresy charge and imprisonment was justified for something clearly visible and readily accepted today.
Big supporter of the Inquisition are you?
THERE IS NO GOD
a) his ideas were not entirely correct
b) Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved
I'm not a member of "The Church" and glad they don't rule over me. "The Church" doesn't represent all of religion. Just one small slice that i don't pick up.
Observed
"... the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved"
Modern science has shown that it is not the complete story. Surely embracing something that is more correct is better than a dogma that states that the bible and church are infallible and punishing people for stating otherwise. There is an attitude that still persists today – that somehow the bible will be proved to be correct; these days with advanced technology and massive computational power, evolution, Big Bang, geology, paleontology, etc. are here to stay and are only getting better and further away from the biblical history.
"Job 26:10 He has marked out a circle on the surface of the deep as the boundary of light and darkness."
That is NOT the original translation. "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness."
Got love how Christians will twist anything and even lie to try and promot their god.
Basic Trigonometry:
A tangent line touches a curve at one point. If you angulate that point on the curve a full 360º in the same plane of that line, it is a circle.
Also, the horizon is a circle form.
If a tangent line touches a sphere, it is basically touching a circle within that sphere.
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! The fact that you are twisting the meaning of that scripture to try and prove the bible is claiming the earth is a shpere is priceless. Even the Smithsonian reported the bible is NOT a science book because it contains literary genre and folk lore. LOL!
Sitting on the earth (a sphere) at one place, is sitting on the circle of the earth.
"Sitting on the earth (a sphere) at one place, is sitting on the circle of the earth."
LOL! Tha is NOT what that scripture is about. LOL!
No one ever claimed the Bible to be a scientific book or about science!
The book of Enoch is interesting.
Vic
"No one ever claimed the Bible to be a scientific book or about science!"
Most people claim it is the word of God. Seems like that would mean it is perfect.
Personal advice: Whenever you feel there is discrepancy, DO NOT hinge your faith on it, instead, just look at God's handywork all over, that is "this universe and life in it."
p.s. You don't want to discuss lines and circles on spheres, no one can determine what the smallest point is to be a unit (you don't want to open that can of worms.) It is infinite! Therefore, everything is relative.
Vic
"just look at God's handywork all over"
I do. That's why I am an agnostic.
Basic Trigonometry:
A tangent line touches a curve at one point. If you angulate that point on the curve a full 360º in the same plane of that line, it is a circle.
If a tangent line touches a sphere, it is basically touching a circle within that sphere.
Also, the horizon is a circle form.
Hence, sitting on the earth (a sphere) at one place, is sitting on the circle of the earth.
Vic,
WRONG. You are sitting on A CIRCLE on the earth, not "THE CIRCLE" of the earth. You are also sitting on lat-itude and longitudinal LINES. SO is the earth a straight line?
Every circle on the sphere is an instance of the circle of the sphere.
Regarding the line, that's why I said in the "same plane of that line the circle is."
Vic,
The earth is composed of lines, too. Just like circles, they are NOT 3-dimensional like the earth is.
The HAHA's shouldn't be so lazy and should find mistakes of some substance. For the Christians here's some info:
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/08/earth-flat-or-sphere_03.html
Observer
You do not know God or call upon God for truth. This being the case you have again twisted the Bible for your own purposes. You are two dimensional the Bible is not and God of course is not limited by our ideas of dimension. Look at how the darkness of your soul has been revealed every time you read the Bible. Again here with the circle nonsense to kick dirt on the Word and kick dirt on Christians. The hate in you grows stronger and you need to take a close look to see if this is how you want to experience our brief existence.
I doubt it would matter but Isaiah 40:22 speaks to the wonder and greatness of God that cannot be contained by the thoughts of man. This verse speaks to the love and protections of God are greater than we can imagine and we are secure in Him. Isaiah 40 opens with assurance of comfort to Gods people and end with his people being lifted up on the wings of eagles.
A vision assuring love and hope is the truth not your twisted extraction and focus on one word. We do not know how Isaiah saw the earth at that point but the audience saw a circle as they could see the arc of the circle in the heavens, the moon and the horizon. Maps were often drawn in a circle of water surrounding the land. The speaker addressed the audience and they fully understood. The Divine nature of the Word of God is revealed because those words are as relevant today as they were 2,700 years ago. Those who know God read the truth and those who hate God twist the truth as did the serpent long ago.
Fred, this hatred you speak of is just your ugly stereotype that you hold of atheists. Just because someone does not share your belief system, this does not mean that they are full of hate. I don't agree with Christians, but I would never accuse them of being full of hate–even though they will frequently threaten me with Hellfire and damnation because I don't share their belief system. Whatever an atheist may say or believe–they will never tell you that you are going to burn forever just because you don't see the world the same way. Which is more hateful? You need to let go of this bigotry.
Regarding God, if you are claiming the existence of a god, please provide some hard, verifiable, testable evidence for your claim.
Dandintac
Actually, Observer intentionally twists verses because of hatred towards Gods people and perhaps God. I do not think I made the claim all atheists are filled with hate.
As Jesus said this is not my kingdom and as the Bible makes clear God is not of substance known to man as God is not a created thing. This being the case I understand why there is no hard data or evidence that would conform to scientific method or standards. God is revealed through creation. Man has worshiped the creator from the earliest of recorded history. Certainly we add our preference and needs on top of God which at some point begin to reflect man more than God. This does not change the core of our need to seek.
"fred
Dandintac
Actually, Observer intentionally twists verses because of hatred towards Gods people and perhaps God. I do not think I made the claim all atheists are filled with hate.........................................."
Actually, Jesus did. If they deny it, it's because of self deception. Remember, "deceivers are deceived??
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Jhn 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
You don't HAVE to listen to their confusion. It's enuff that they do,.
Fred, I read Observer's remarks going up quite a bit. I see nothing to justify calling him full of hatred. I see this type of comment all too often from believers–that we are full of hate–all because we are not followers in your religion are able to explain why. It is wrong, and I'm asking you to stop unless you have something more substantial to justify it–like if Observer were to say that you will burn forever if you don't see things the way he does. Now that would indeed be hateful.
This is a belief blog.
Christians do not believe Vishnu is God.
Christians do not believe Allah is God.
Christians believe Jesus is God.
Atheists do not believe Vishnu is God.
Atheists do not believe Allah is God.
Atheists do not believe Jesus is God.
So right there we already agree on 2 out of 3 beliefs.
So why do I see so many Christians upset that atheists are frequenting the belief blogs?
Have no Christians railed against Islam or Hinduism? Do Christians always treat other religions with the utmost respect and never refute their ideology accepting them as valid as their own?
An atheist is most often just an ex-religious person who was able to see that there is no substantial difference between religions and religious experiences and just went one step further in denying other Gods to include their own. It would be hyprocritical to dismiss everyone elses God without giving your own prefered deity the same scrutiny.
@Happy Atheist : So why do I see so many Christians upset that atheists are frequenting the belief blogs?
I cannot speak for other Christians, but only for myself. I don't object to atheists frequenting the belief blogs. But, I do have a problem with them mocking Christianity (but not other religions), claiming that atheism isn't a religion, and claiming xyz without any evidence to support those claims.
@Happy Atheist : Have no Christians railed against Islam or Hinduism? Do Christians always treat other religions with the utmost respect and never refute their ideology
I always try to treat others with respect. Yet, I will also endeavor to point out flaws in their evidence or reasoning.
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
<><
Well then I will continue to treat everyone with respect while also pointing "out flaws in their evidence or reasoning."
Sadly, when I point out flaws in Christian evidence (or lack thereof) I often get angry outbursts and personal attacks on my lack of belief in their God along with exortations about where I will be spending an unpleasant afterlife. Well, here's to hoping more Christians treat others with respect because it says far more about the person ranting and raving than it does about the person being ranted about.
Lie4Him,
"... I do have a problem with them mocking Christianity (but not other religions), claiming that atheism isn't a religion, and claiming xyz without any evidence to support those claims."
Christians are the majority of believers on here so you'd expect the conversation would mainly be about christianity. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
Examples of claims with no evidence?
"I always try to treat others with respect."
Which is why your other posts say that, for example, atheists don't know the difference between 2- and 3-dimensional objects.
So why do I see so many Christians upset that atheists are frequenting the belief blogs?
They usually aren't upset. They usually are pointing out the irony that some atheists spend 8 to 10 hours a day/7 days a week in the message board section of a blog dedicated to faith and belief. You know, arguing against a God they say doesn't exist.
Right. I'm sure it's just the irony they are getting so hysterical about. There are atheists who are rude and vulgar. There are Christians who are rude and vulgar (though i'm sure there are a few No True Scotsman Christians out there who will claim those persons aren't true Christians). Should we coin some new words to define a respectful atheist and a respectful christian so that we can tell who is who here? Or should we just let their fruits define them? If so there is a lot of dead wood on both sides so arguing over whos who is just pointless.
If someone says 2+2 = bananna I will respectfully disagree, but I admit it's hard not to call that person an idiot and question whether they may have been dropped on their head as a baby, but I agree, the personal attack is not needed to refute the obviously flawed premise they posit.
"You know, arguing against a God they say doesn't exist."
More lies from the Christians. No, we argue the bible is not an historical docu.ment because it's full of literary genre and folk lore.
"You know, arguing against a God they say doesn't exist."
More lies from the Christians. No, we argue the bible is not an historical docu-ment because it's full of literary genre and folk lore.
That "we" is a BIG tribe that performs at the Big Tent. With all their pride some call em Big Tops.
Momof4: I would feel that by hiding in the closet and only thinking that I was communicating telepathically with them and they are unable to "get it", ***I*** have failed.
I just saw your comment.
The reality is that Father isn't hiding in the closet.
His Holy Spirit (Wisdom) lives on the inside of each and every believer. That's why He told us in no uncertain terms... behold I am With you always...even to the ends of the earth.
So we are not Fatherless because Father is always with us.
I know He's always with me.
Blessings.
I am AB
Did you use logic and reason to come to that conclusion? Or your atheist instinct?
Either way you just completely proved yourself wrong. IDIOT. So wrong.
Atheism = God does not exist because science
... Because science what?
(Walks away.)
Isn't having conversations with yourself a sign of possible schizophrenia?
For the internet atheists, atheism IS a religion, and it has all of the hallmarks: It is based on faith, it can not be proven, it proselytizes, it attacks all competing religious beliefs, and uses whatever force it can to drive out and destroy other belief systems.
Internet Atheists act exactly like the xtirard,
Why not use the term "believer" instead of "xtiard?" It's more respectful of them, don't you think?
It's not right to paint people with such a broad brush as that. There are discernible differences among non-theists and even among believers.
Internet Atheists are the Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists of the left.
chad won/t like this !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc#t=0
Right wing Christian fundamentalists are the right wing Christian fundamentalists of the Right.
Internet atheists attack virtually anything related to religion. Hilariously enough, they are generally just as dogmatic as the religious.
i wouldn't know one if it slapped me on the face
The point is, an atheist doesn't believe that there is enough evidence of a god so the atheist doesn't need to prove that. The same way that you don't believe in Vishnu but can't prove he doesn't exist. The theist makes a claim based upon the credentials outlined in the creation myth; all creation myths are shown to be incorrect. It is the theist that needs to provide the evidence.
Awful lot of "appeal to authority" fallacies going on here.
Next you are going to suggest that the strong influence of religion on culture made it advantageous for scientists to accept god publicly, aren't you?
Atheism purifies me and puts the blood on the hands of the religious.
Somebody said Christianity opposes science. Yet testimony of actual scientists disagree with the opinion of a hostile internet poster.
Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same;