Magus55

Again, wrong Mark - Mat 24:34 is talking about the end time events and Jesus said - this generation [that sees the end times signs, not the Apostles] will not pass away until these things have come to pass. Jesus was referring to the generation that will see the end times signs, and since Jesus was dictating to the Apostles - thats why he said it that way, for those who see the end signs, to know they are the generation that won't pass away.
You can disagree with it all you want, doesn't make it wrong - and doesn't change didly. Jesus specifically said, no man knows the time when Jesus will return - so how can He be late, if no one knows when He is supposed to return? Could be tomorrow, could be 100 years from now.

Unfortunately, you won't be owing us anything if you are wrong. You will be standing before God and will have to explain your rejection to Him before he sentences you. If Jesus comes before you die, you better hope you survive His wrath on the world. Once your dead, your fate is sealed for all eternity. As the saying goes: an eternity is a long time to be wrong.

And i could say the same thing to you - I gaurantee Jesus will return and He isn't late, because he never told us when he would definately return. He said keep watch, and He will come like a thief in the night. No one will expect it.


You Atheists just pick and choose what you don't want to hear, and make up lame contradictions with no studying or understanding whatsoever, just so you don't have to possibily accept an authority with supreme sovereignty over you. Atheists don't want to be held accountable for the little transgressions they committ, so you block out the possibility of God and assume He doesn't exist. It keeps you in your little world where you don't have to accept God as reality and can do whatever you want with no consequences.

braces_for_impact

While I think that the flat earth argument in the bible is vaguley amusing, if not a bit tiring, what I really find exhausting is broad sweeping generalizations.

Time and again I have seen atheists, agnostics and pantheists demonstrate superior in depth knowledge of the bible (and it's history) than many Christians here.



This is highly insulting. You assume merely because we lack a particular belief you do that we are immoral, and that we do not wish to be accountable for our actions. You are generalizing in an attempt to explain our motivations, regardless of the fact that you know little to nothing about most of the non believers on this board, except that they dissagree with you.

Again You reason that we reject your belief because we wish to act without ethics and not be accountable to anyone for our actions. Yet time and again I have seen people who reject your god's moral authority as well as other Christstians on this board, unequivocably demostrate superior moral conduct and greater empathy than yourself. As a representative of Christianity, you do more to drive us from this god's "love" than any amount of secular discussion that has ever taken place on this board.

Mods, my apologies for derailing this thread, but after seeing this behavior time and again I tire of it and felt the need to express myself.

lpetrich

Magus55, such Pascalian fulminations don't prove anything.

I suggest that you consider possibilities outside of those you've outlined, like those of other religions. Islam also features a Heaven and a Hell, so you might want to consider converting to Islam just in case Islam is true.

Also, you people may enjoy The Flat Earth Bible.

Magus55

Islam is based on man made rules, created by Mohammed. If you seriously think, a god creating a paradise of whores and little boys for sexual pleasure for all eternity is in line with a perfect, holy being - you really don't understand holiness at all.

ALL other religions support doing works to reach God. As if you could ever earn your way to be in God's prescence. Christianity is all about God offering the way for us to be with him. Its His love and mercy that brings about eternal life, not some stupid little works we can attempt to do to appease God.

Vorkosigan

Or maybe we don't suffer from that kind of neurosis that regards sex as dirty.

ALL other religions support doing works to reach God.

Wow! Even religions that have no gods?

Vorkosigan

Evangelion

(a) I don't have a minister, (b) I know they're in the Bible, (c) an appeal to figurative language is not going to get you anywhere.

If you want to go down that road, why don't you tell me why we still use the expressions "sunrise" and "sunset" when in fact we know perfectly well that these terms do not accurately describe what is literally happening?

Think about it.

Jinto

For the same reason that we use the term "planetary nebulae" when they have absolutely nothing to do with planets. But the use of a misnomer is different than not understanding the concept, and the bible clearly shows the latter in regards to a spherical Earth.

Evangelion

Nonsense. It's simply a figure of speech, by which the apparent relationship of the sun to the earth is referred to.

You're trying to take shelter in a double standard. That won't work.

Jinto

Evangelion, don't make me repeat myself:

Now, please explain to me how Dan. 4:10-11 is a figure of speech. In particular:

1. Why any tree on the surface of the Earth would be referred to as being at the center of the Earth if the Earth is spherical.

2. How the tree can "reach to heaven," given that heaven is not a firmament a finite distance above the Earth.

3. How a tree can be visible to the "ends of the whole Earth" on a spherical Earth.

4. How the fuck a tree several hundred miles high (as it would need to be to be visible from even a large portion of the Earth) could possibly remain stable. And please don't say goddidit.

You would think it absurd if I talked about stars falling onto the Earth, please don't apply a double standard to the bible.

Evangelion

Oh please. This is just too good to be true.

Because, Captain Context, it's a prophetic vision, as the narrative clearly and unambiguously states.

Thus:

• Daniel 4:4-13.
  I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace:
  I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me.
  Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.
  Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.
  But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying,
  O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
  Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
  The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
  The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.
  I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from heaven;

And so on, and so forth.

Pretty simple, eh? It's a good idea to read these things properly. That way, you don't end up making an entire pig's breakfast out of it.

The Aramaic word in question ('ara`) does not always signify the entire globe, but sometimes only a specific region. It is also used as an abstract reference to "the ground" (for example, "I planted the petunias carefully in the ground.")

This is demonstrated by the use of the same word later in (a) the same chapter, and (b) subsequent chapters:

• Abstract reference to "the ground":
  Daniel 4:15.
  "Yet leave the stump with its roots in the ground, But with a band of iron and bronze around it In the new grass of the field; And let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, And let him share with the beasts in the grass of the earth.
  
• Abstract reference to "the ground":
  Daniel 4:23.
  'In that the king saw an angelic watcher, a holy one, descending from heaven and saying, "Chop down the tree and destroy it; yet leave the stump with its roots in the ground, but with a band of iron and bronze around it in the new grass of the field, and let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him share with the beasts of the field until seven periods of time pass over him,"
  
• Specific reference to a particular region; to whit, the empire of the Medes and Persians:
  Daniel 6:25.
  Then Darius the king wrote to all the peoples, nations and men of every language who were living in all the land: "May your peace abound!

Again, pretty simple.

It's not a literal tree, it's not presented as a literal event, and the "earth" in this context is the kingdom of Babylon.

See above.

See above.

That would depend on the context.

I'm not.

Well, that was easy.