The lunatics have taken over

[jimmy eat jazz]

I can't help but notice that CJ has avoided responding to my question, so here it is again. And anyone else who is a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, but who holds racist/bigotted views, is free to answer:

How do you square your racism/bigotry with Christ's injunction to "do unto others what you would have them do to you" and to "love on another"?

Sorry, CJ, but you don't strike me as a true follower of Christ, but rather as one who claims to follow Christ, but picks and chooses his teachings consistent with your pre-existing biases, prejudices and limited intellectual understanding.

Show me I'm wrong.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Hey donuts...hold on to your horse, there! It seems to me that you are just "parroting" or repeating something someone told you about in connection with what they THOUGHT the Bible actually says, rather than checking it out for yourself! So let me correct you in a kind and mild way with some simple copy and paste material!

The Encyclopedia Americana said: “The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe. .*.*. The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance.” Some early navigators even feared that they might sail off the edge of the flat earth. But then the introduction of the compass and other advancements made possible longer ocean voyages. These “voyages of discovery,” another encyclopedia explains, “showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed.”

Yet, long before such voyages, about 2,700 years ago, the Bible said: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word here translated “circle” can also mean “sphere,” as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and, “the round earth.”—Moffatt.

Thus, the Bible was not influenced by the unscientific views prevalent at the time regarding the earth’s support and its shape. The reason is simple: The Author of the Bible is the Author of the universe. He created the earth, so he should know what it hangs on and what its shape is. Hence, when he inspired the Bible, he saw to it that no unscientific views were incorporated in it, however much they may have been believed by others at the time.

And then we have THIS as well: When the Bible was being written, there was speculation regarding how the earth was held in space. Some, for example, believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Yet rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at its time of writing, the Bible simply stated: “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) Yes, over 3,000 years ago the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support, a fact that is in harmony with the more recently understood laws of gravity and motion. “How Job knew the truth,” observed one religious scholar, “is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture.”

I am waiting to accept your apology, thank you very much!

You just proved my point. Everything you said above is the result of reinterpretation of the bible now that the scientific truth cannot be disputed. In Galileo's time he was branded a heretic for saying the very things that you now interpret the bible to prove. In other words, your modern interpretation is in direct contradiction to the interpretation that your church was once willing to put people to death for disagreeing with.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Well, to win a debate, provable facts of truth and provable facts of science must be used. So to have a person "judge" who won or who lost would be next to impossible, since you would want "judges" who accept neither! Of course, winning a debate on any subject would be predicated on the judges being "fair" "impartial" and "unbiased". Picking out such ones on this board would be impossible! Your retort would be "since it's a debate....whatever judges are used will suffice". Not true! I do remember debating in High School the subject of the benefit and usefulness of the "United Nations" as a peace keeping organization. I was up against just one individual and the "class" had to judge or vote who won. I argued that the UN could NEVER be a true source of peace and security. I won that one hands down!

Actually, on this board I've broken a very important "rule" from my source of truth on numerous occasions! 1 Timothy 6:4 points out not to be . . ."obsessed with arguments and debates about words"...because "they give rise to envy, strife" etc. That being said, it was just too tempting not to chime in on some topics that have been raised by offering an alternative observation based on truth and facts.....not conjecture, assumption and theory!

By the way, what do you think the chances are that the Jazz make the playoffs this year?

Siro wins the debate. Carolina KO's himself before the opening round bell has even rung.

 

[Siro]

Well, to win a debate, provable facts of truth and provable facts of science must be used. So to have a person "judge" who won or who lost would be next to impossible, since you would want "judges" who accept neither! Of course, winning a debate on any subject would be predicated on the judges being "fair" "impartial" and "unbiased". Picking out such ones on this board would be impossible! Your retort would be "since it's a debate....whatever judges are used will suffice". Not true! I do remember debating in High School the subject of the benefit and usefulness of the "United Nations" as a peace keeping organization. I was up against just one individual and the "class" had to judge or vote who won. I argued that the UN could NEVER be a true source of peace and security. I won that one hands down!

Actually, on this board I've broken a very important "rule" from my source of truth on numerous occasions! 1 Timothy 6:4 points out not to be . . ."obsessed with arguments and debates about words"...because "they give rise to envy, strife" etc. That being said, it was just too tempting not to chime in on some topics that have been raised by offering an alternative observation based on truth and facts.....not conjecture, assumption and theory!

By the way, what do you think the chances are that the Jazz make the playoffs this year?

Translation: It is true that everyone on here thinks I'm an idiot, so only me and my mom should be used to judge the debate. Now here's a Bible quote.

 

[Red]

For centuries, based on the book that you are so certain is the one truth, Christianity taught that the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat. How did that turn out? Was your truth proven false, or did religion simply discover a new way to interpret the gobbeldy goop wording of the Bible?

It appears to me that you and ISIS extremists have something in common. You both value your particular interpretations of ancient writings (which have gone through multiple translations and revisions at the hands of people who had plenty to gain by manipulating what those words say) more than any actual evidence.

Extend one's religious fanaticism far enough, and it will be indistinguishable from the madness that is ISIS. Recall the Christian preacher, I believe he was from Az., who delivered a sermon claiming the Paris attacks were God's punishment for the sins of the French. Much in common with ISIS. The same angry, wrathful God. Which indeed, we can presume is the case since both Islam and Christianity share common roots. Yet, how sick is it for a Christian preacher to find moral justification for committing mass murder? My mind reels trying to understand how such an individual fails to recognize he has just left Christianity behind altogether when he makes such a twisted claim. But that's religious fanaticism for you. It does not rest on reason. It rests on fear, anger, and hatred. And, if it did not carry such fearful consequences at times, it would qualify as absolutely comical to see any human being claim they can speak for God, they know what God's will is, and carry the authority to speak and act accordingly. And if the mystics of the world find their own will conforming with the will of God, I've yet to see a one identify the God they claim to experience as angry and wrathful. Please, can we outgrow this deity of desert nomads? Someday, maybe? Or find the love, for heaven's sake, and be done with all this wrath. Not for one second saying anyone here would agree with that Az. preacher, but his fanaticism is pretty indistinguishable from the fanatics of ISIS.

 

[carolinajazz]

You just proved my point. Everything you said above is the result of reinterpretation of the bible now that the scientific truth cannot be disputed. In Galileo's time he was branded a heretic for saying the very things that you now interpret the bible to prove. In other words, your modern interpretation is in direct contradiction to the interpretation that your church was once willing to put people to death for disagreeing with.

Your ability to reason and discern facts, dates, and recorded history baffles me for a college graduate! First of all, the Bible was written and completed WAY before Galileo's head was the size of a grape! Same with the Catholic church, Protestant church, etc. etc. etc.! Those scriptures I quoted proving the earth was round or a "circle" and hung upon "nothing" were ALWAYS there but completely overlooked or accepted as truth by those religions! And there is NO "reinterpretation" of the Bible in that regard! It says what it says....and means what it says! Now, if you can/could substantiate that the Catholic Church and Galileo were around 3,000 years ago or before the Bible was completed, then you'd have a leg to stand on! What Galileo said certainly does support what the Bible said about the earth being a "circle" (ROUND!) and "hangs upon nothing" (positive proof that when the Bible DOES touch on scientific matters it is COMPLETELY accurate!)

Your confusing what the churches of Christendom (those religions that claim to be Christian) said and believed and what the Bible ACTUALLY says or teaches! Two completely different things! Actually, the Churches of Christendom are exactly like you in that they do not feel the Bible is the inspired word of God and contains fairy tales, myths and outright lies and contradictions!

 

[carolinajazz]

I can't help but notice that CJ has avoided responding to my question, so here it is again. And anyone else who is a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, but who holds racist/bigotted views, is free to answer:

I am going to get to you shortly!

 

[carolinajazz]

Extend one's religious fanaticism far enough, and it will be indistinguishable from the madness that is ISIS. Recall the Christian preacher, I believe he was from Az., who delivered a sermon claiming the Paris attacks were God's punishment for the sins of the French. Much in common with ISIS. The same angry, wrathful God. Which indeed, we can presume is the case since both Islam and Christianity share common roots. Yet, how sick is it for a Christian preacher to find moral justification for committing mass murder? My mind reels trying to understand how such an individual fails to recognize he has just left Christianity behind altogether when he makes such a twisted claim. But that's religious fanaticism for you. It does not rest on reason. It rests on fear, anger, and hatred. And, if it did not carry such fearful consequences at times, it would qualify as absolutely comical to see any human being claim they can speak for God, they know what God's will is, and carry the authority to speak and act accordingly. And if the mystics of the world find their own will conforming with the will of God, I've yet to see a one identify the God they claim to experience as angry and wrathful. Please, can we outgrow this deity of desert nomads? Someday, maybe? Or find the love, for heaven's sake, and be done with all this wrath. Not for one second saying anyone here would agree with that Az. preacher, but his fanaticism is pretty indistinguishable from the fanatics of ISIS.

Red, you make some excellent points! But here again, there is confusion as to what the churches of Christendom teach and what the Bible actually says! Historically, Christendom has claimed to believe in the Bible and to be its guardian. But the religious organizations of Christendom have been associated with some of the most appalling horrors of history, from the Crusades and pogroms of the Middle Ages to the Holocaust of our own time. The truth is, Christendom has proved to be a false friend of the Bible.

The purity of Bible truth was corrupted by Greek philosophy, as early as the end of the 1st Century, and many mistakenly came to accept pagan doctrines as Bible truth. In the fourth century, the Roman emperor Constantine adopted “Christianity” as the official religion of the Roman Empire. But the “Christianity” he knew was very different from the religion preached by Jesus.

It was in Constantine’s time that Christendom as we know it today began to take shape. From then on, the degenerate form of Christianity that had taken root was no longer just a religious organization. It was a part of the state, and its leaders played an important role in politics. Eventually, the apostate church used its political power in a way that was completely opposed to Bible Christianity, introducing another dangerous threat to the Bible.

When Latin died out as an everyday tongue, new translations of the Bible were needed. But the Catholic Church no longer favored this. In 1079 Vratislaus, who later became king of Bohemia, asked the permission of Pope Gregory*VII to translate the Bible into the language of his subjects. The pope’s answer was no! The pope wanted the Bible to be kept in the now-dead tongue of Latin. Its contents were to be kept “secret,” not translated into the languages of the common people. These religious authorities were not trying to destroy the Bible. They were trying to fossilize it, (somebody on this board has used that term likewise! It wasn't you, was it?) keep it in a language that only a few could read. In this way, they hoped to prevent what they called heresy but what really amounted to challenges to their authority.

 

[RandyForRubio]

For centuries, based on the book that you are so certain is the one truth, Christianity taught that the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat. How did that turn out? Was your truth proven false, or did religion simply discover a new way to interpret the gobbeldy goop wording of the Bible?

It appears to me that you and ISIS extremists have something in common. You both value your particular interpretations of ancient writings (which have gone through multiple translations and revisions at the hands of people who had plenty to gain by manipulating what those words say) more than any actual evidence.

This thread sucks, and I don't want to get involved with CJ...but the Bible does teach that the Earth is in the shape of a sphere. Just because other people, including those in the church, taught that it was flat doesn't invalidate the Bible.

 

[Siro]

This thread sucks, and I don't want to get involved with CJ...but the Bible does teach that the Earth is in the shape of a sphere. Just because other people, including those in the church, taught that it was flat doesn't invalidate the Bible.

It's not even true that it was church doctrine or official position of any kind. Some Christian theologians thought the Earth was flat, many others didn't. Plenty of cultures have known about the spherical nature of Earth since ancient times (at least as early as the Greeks, and probably even earlier).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Your ability to reason and discern facts, dates, and recorded history baffles me for a college graduate! First of all, the Bible was written and completed WAY before Galileo's head was the size of a grape! Same with the Catholic church, Protestant church, etc. etc. etc.! Those scriptures I quoted proving the earth was round or a "circle" and hung upon "nothing" were ALWAYS there but completely overlooked or accepted as truth by those religions! And there is NO "reinterpretation" of the Bible in that regard! It says what it says....and means what it says! Now, if you can/could substantiate that the Catholic Church and Galileo were around 3,000 years ago or before the Bible was completed, then you'd have a leg to stand on! What Galileo said certainly does support what the Bible said about the earth being a "circle" (ROUND!) and "hangs upon nothing" (positive proof that when the Bible DOES touch on scientific matters it is COMPLETELY accurate!)

Your confusing what the churches of Christendom (those religions that claim to be Christian) said and believed and what the Bible ACTUALLY says or teaches! Two completely different things! Actually, the Churches of Christendom are exactly like you in that they do not feel the Bible is the inspired word of God and contains fairy tales, myths and outright lies and contradictions!

Communicating with you is such an exercise in futility that I'm not going to continue to engage beyond this post. It doesn't even make sense that you are saying my argument falls flat because Galileo was not born before the bible was written. My argument is entirely based on the fact that believers in the bible interpreted it to say one thing before Galileo, so much so that he was branded a heretic for discovering the truth, and believers in the bible now interpret it to say the opposite thing now that the truth of what Galileo said is so indisputably obvious.

When evolution is such an indisputable fact that even the most oblivious couldn't possibly back creationism I am 100% certain that people like yourself will search the bible and find verses that you will believe prove that the bible taught evolution all along. Unfortunately it's unlikely that we will ever reach that time because some theologians argue that God simply created the fossil record and other evidence that show the earth's history does not match biblical teachings to throw us off or to test our faith. I can only conclude that your god is either a big-time practical joker, or the bible is filled with erroneous information. Either way, I have no interest in discussing it further.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This thread sucks, and I don't want to get involved with CJ...but the Bible does teach that the Earth is in the shape of a sphere. Just because other people, including those in the church, taught that it was flat doesn't invalidate the Bible.

Where does it say this? CJ earlier quoted a verse that said it was a circle, but there is a huge difference between a circle and a sphere.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Where does it say this? CJ earlier quoted a verse that said it was a circle, but there is a huge difference between a circle and a sphere.

Sorry, it is circle. You're correct. The symbolism is pretty much the same though.

 

[Siro]

Sorry, it is circle. You're correct. The symbolism is pretty much the same though.

How? Back in the day, people who thought the Earth was flat assumed it's a circle. The two competing ideas were a disk or a sphere. I'm not aware of anyone who thought it was a square or anything like that.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Sorry, it is circle. You're correct. The symbolism is pretty much the same though.

It's a big difference. Circle can be interpenetrated as a flat earth, and it can also be interpenetrated as a spherical earth. That's exactly what has happened.

 

[Siro]

It's a big difference. Circle can be interpenetrated as a flat earth, and it can also be interpenetrated as a spherical earth. That's exactly what has happened.

I think you're being generous. A circle requires no interpretation. It is flat. So it is the OPPOSITE of what CJ is saying. What the Bible actually SAYS, is that the Earth is flat. The reinterpretation makes it into a sphere. It is NOT what is ACTUALLY says. This is specially the case since many people thought the Earth was a flat circle. They could see that all other objects in the sky are circular.

 

[Stoked]

I think you're being generous. A circle requires no interpretation. It is flat. So it is the OPPOSITE of what CJ is saying. What the Bible actually SAYS, is that the Earth is flat. The reinterpretation makes it into a sphere. It is NOT what is ACTUALLY says. This is specially the case since many people thought the Earth was a flat circle. They could see that all other objects in the sky are circular.

He is being generous but you are being equally ungenerous. It is unarguable that people taught that the earth is a flat circle.

But Howards is saying that the Bible could have been trying to say it's a sphere regardless of how people took it. It's certainly possible imo.

So...maybe...but no one will every really know.

 

[Siro]

He is being generous but you are being equally ungenerous. It is unarguable that people taught that the earth is a flat circle.

But Howards is saying that the Bible could have been trying to say it's a sphere regardless of how people took it. It's certainly possible imo.

So...maybe...but no one will every really know.

You're completely missing the point. I have zero interest in engaging with people who will reinterpret things any way they want because they already believe it on faith. So what anyone thinks the Bible REALLY means is no concern of mine.

What is important is that some people taught the Earth was a circle, while others said a sphere (the Greeks thought it was a sphere 2600 years ago). Which one is WRITTEN in the Bible? The circle. So CJ's argument is already disproven since he said that it's about what is actually written, and not what is interpreted.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think you're being generous. A circle requires no interpretation. It is flat. So it is the OPPOSITE of what CJ is saying. What the Bible actually SAYS, is that the Earth is flat. The reinterpretation makes it into a sphere. It is NOT what is ACTUALLY says. This is specially the case since many people thought the Earth was a flat circle. They could see that all other objects in the sky are circular.

I am being generous. I read a website that claimed that the Latin word for circle was the same as the word for sphere. I actually doubt that's accurate because it's not as if the Latin's were clueless about math, but my ultimate point is that religions are going to find a ways to reinterpret their sacred documents whenever they are forced to.

Using the Mormon religion as an example, am I the only one who doesn't think it is coincidental that polygamy was banned and blacks were given the priesthood both by divine revelations which just happened to arrive at the same time political pressure regarding the church's former positions was becoming overwhelming? It sure was fortunate that God stepped in and settled the debate like that! He seems like a really good guy.

Anybody want to set an over/under on when a revelation arrives regarding homosexuality?

 

[Siro]

I am being generous. I read a website that claimed that the Latin word for circle was the same as the word for sphere. I actually doubt that's accurate because it's not as if the Latin's were clueless about math, but my ultimate point is that religions are going to find a ways to reinterpret their sacred documents whenever they are forced to.

Using the Mormon religion as an example, am I the only one who doesn't think it is coincidental that polygamy was banned and blacks were given the priesthood both by divine revelations which just happened to arrive at the same time political pressure regarding the church's former positions was becoming overwhelming? It sure was fortunate that God stepped in and settled the debate like that! He seems like a really good guy.

Anybody want to set an over/under on when a revelation arrives regarding homosexuality?

The Bible is written in Greek (and Hebrew). Since it was the Greeks who argued the Earth was a sphere and NOT a circle, they of course knew the difference. That section was written in Hebrew, who also knew the difference since they were humans with a human brain.

Here's page on the meaning of the words in Hebrew from a Christian theology website (hint, it unequivocally means a flat circle):

https://www.crivoice.org/circle.html