Metacrock

Do you know the difference in maragin and butter? When I was an atheist I wasn't content with just any old clap trap one could throw up against religion.

Metacrock

Meta =>^Yea but so what? That's my point. If litteral history isn't the mark of Biblical revelation (and it isn't) then why should litteral sceince be that mark? It's not meant to be a science text book. It's written from the view point of the people in that culture. That was thousnads of years ago, they didn't know about the theory of the cosmos. So what? The Bible is about bestowing Grace not about building rocketts to Mars or doing science in any way. Why does that have to be the mark of truth?

{Edite to fix a couple of long URLs in the quote - Pantera}

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Metacrock

MEta =&gt;Not on the net, where atheists usually don't even know what context means, and where they dont' care.


Meta =&gt;So what? It's written by people who lived thousands of years ago. Of course they wrote it from their persective, since they could hardly be expected to write form a persective they did not have. IT's not meant to be science, so who cares?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Christian defences are: "Don't start with your conclusion, and dogmatically try and prove it with scriptures."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look who's talking. Has there ever been any other style of Bible interpretation?

Meta -&gt;Duh! there are tons of them, study theology!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(the Bible indicating that the Earth is flat...)


Meta =&gt;There aren't any. There are verses that speak of the "four corners of the earth" but that could as well be poetic language. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta -&gt;No, first of all Jesus could not be fiction. It's almost impossible and there is absolutely no reason to think so. Secondly, what is so implausible about poetic langaue in a book which is obviously based upon poetic language. ATheists are so illiterate? The most ignroatn idiots in the world! I have never seen a more ignorant or unleanred group of people even in West Texas!


MEta -&gt;I try that all the time! It's hopeless, that's why I decided to concentrate on you guys. But guess what, I didnt' know when I was well off.


Meta =&gt;Well that just shows how totally ignorant you are. The liberal position is not "take what you like." That is the height of ignronace to think that and it just shows how you have never read any theology. I'v e lost my patience with you jerks. I've been trying to get you to at least read one damn page of a book for 2 years now and all of you are too thick headed and too in love with your own illiteracy to even bother!

It's well defeined, it's totally well thought out and it covere every single base. I will bebate you on the 1x1 board about it. If you think its so stupid what do you have to lose?

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;They probably did. If you asked Moses "is the earth flat?" NO doubt he would say it was. So what? Who cares? That has nothing to do with it. That is only a problem if verbal plenary is the only model of revelation, it is not. You are just unable to understand the others becasue verbal plenary is too easy to shoot down and you can't allow yourself the challenge of dealing with anything difficult or sophisticated.

Want to debate 1x1?

Metacrock

O brother! It's a vision, get it??? And so what if they did think it was flat, that's just not important.

Kosh

Good witness Meta. Jesus and Paul would be
proud.

Buh-bye.

Asha'man

Of course I get it: it is a vision of a flat earth, with a tall tree.

The original question was: where does the bible text imply a flat earth? What are the standard arguments about this question? We are simply pointing out verses that support the flat earth view, and discussing them.

Maybe you need to take a deep breath and calm down for a sec, Metacrock. You seem to be reading much of this as a personal attack, and it isn't. We all have our own philosophy, and our own reasons for following that philosophy. If you don't think the bible should be read literally, then you and I are in agreement. If you think that parts of the bible have a good and valid message, then we agree on a second point. On the other hand, I suspect that some of the parts that you think are valid are ones I may disagree with. We can discuss those points in appropriate threads, which is the whole point of this forum.

lpetrich

Tell that to Martin Luther (metaphorically, of course, since he died over 4 centuries ago). As he notes, Joshua told the Sun to stop moving and not the Earth.

But it's supposed to be Truth, right? This gives me some respect for fundamentalism.

Tell that to some fundamentalists some time. If you have the courage, O Metacrock. And if the content of the Bible is basically allegorical and not literal, then there is no good reason to get bent out of shape by the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was a myth -- he could simply have been part of that great allegory.

In other words, it was dumbed down -- without that dumbing down being explicitly warned about.

Tell that to some fundamentalists some time. If you have any courage, O Metacrock.

Or more likely, don't care for manufactured pseudo-contexts.


But why should we take such fairy tales seriously as ABSOLUTE, FINAL TRUTH? Metacrock, you and all your fellow "liberal" apologists make fundamentalists look honest.

Getting bent out of shape is no argument.

However, the Bible-as-poetic-language hypothesis could include the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was pure myth; consider that he fits Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile *very* well.

Don't be a coward -- just put up a lot of pages explaining why you think fundamentalism is naive and erroneous, and advertise them in various places.

I've had a hard time telling the difference between much theological argumentation and taking what one likes and leaving what one doesn't like -- and that includes many fundamentalists also, sad to say.

However, if it is some secret code that requires some sort of key to unlock its true meaning, then that is not the end of our problems. First off, is it really a coded message? And if so, then what is the code and how does one decode it?

And also, if I was the Ruler of thus humongous Universe, I would not send coded messages to isolated people. I'd send clear messages to those in ruling positions.

Consider the way that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been handling the India-Pakistan confrontation. They have not been sending cryptic messages to isolated people in out-of-the-way parts of those two nations. Instead, they have been sending clear messages to the leaders of those two countries.

And if I was a god, I'd do the exact same sort of thing, and not act like a whimpering coward.

Muad'Dib

Calm down, Metacrock. If you think someone's idea is stupid, you are intelligent enough to explain why without being abusive.

(tags)

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Want to debate 1x1?

Happily. What is it you want to debate?

Michael