Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered

[WhoDeyWho]

Quote:Daniel 4:10-11King James Version (KJV)

10 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.

11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

No matter how tall that tree got, only a flat earther would think it could be viewed "to the end of all earth".

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-14-2015, 09:21 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: You could not have seen every kingdom from any mountain.  Nice try though.

I wasn't there so i tried explaining the relevant point instead of scrutinizing each word and judging a literal vs allegorical meaning. 

If you prefer to get hung up on how it's worded instead of focusing on the message, so be it.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-14-2015, 09:34 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: No matter how tall that tree got, only a flat earther would think it could be viewed "to the end of all earth".

The tree in the dream from the scripture you're using, isn't really a tree...and it's from a dream...

This is why it's not a good idea to pick out a line or two and draw conclusions because you may be way off base and it may hurt your argument more than help it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2015, 09:51 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The tree in the dream from the scripture you're using, isn't really a tree...and it's from a dream...

This is why it's not a good idea to pick out a line or two and draw conclusions because you may be way off base and it may hurt your argument more than help it.

It amazes me how hard some folks try to poke holes in the scripture. What are they so afraid of?

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-14-2015, 09:51 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The tree in the dream from the scripture you're using, isn't really a tree...and it's from a dream...

This is why it's not a good idea to pick out a line or two and draw conclusions because you may be way off base and it may hurt your argument more than help it.

Put it all together: Satan taking Jesus to a really tall mountain to see all the kingdoms, a tree that's so tall everyone can see it. Come on man, they clearly thought the Earth was flat. You conveniently choose to ignore this or make ridiculous excuses for it.

[GMDino]

Are ya'll REALLY arguing over whether a "circle" is "flat"?

Clearly they knew there were mountains and tress and some people were taller than others.

The "flat earth" thing doesn't mean we are on a two dimensional plane. It means we are on a disc that when you reach the end of it you fall off.

A lot of people disputed it and many disproved it.

Even the Catholic church.

The Earth-centric universe (or solar system) took a little longer for the church to come around on because they insisted the bible proved it to be true and if that was wrong people could begin to question the "word of God". In the end they came around...and said the bible meant that all along.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 11:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not to be too nit picky on the semantics, but showing all of the kingdoms of the world is not the same as showing all of the world.

Which mountain allows you a view of all the kingdoms of the world?

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2015, 12:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Which mountain allows you a view of all the kingdoms of the world?

At the time? Hard to say. Though considering much of the Bible is allegorical and we are talking about the supernatural here, so the explanations anyone tries to give as far as literal interpretations is going to be ludicrous. Like I said before, those trying to use this in their argument are the same ones that will deride those taking the Bible literally in other instances for their positions.

The Bible is filled with allegory. Language used to paint a picture that the people can identify with. Using the literal in attempt to either prove or disprove anything is ignorant.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 01:51 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Definitely clear as mud, in a lot of cases, without a thorough study and cross-reference with other passages. And i've always felt that if you give a human a chance to screw something up, he'll never disappoint you, so i fully understand complaints that even Christians can't always agree on something that they all believe in.

My feelings are, it's all there: allegory, literal, language of appearance, inerrancy, etc. It's not simple in any way, shape or form, yet sometimes it is. 

So, in theory, i agree with you but i do believe there is reason to it and, all that said, i know i've done nothing to really make it less muddy. >.<

Quote:rfaulk34

Not all other points, all the kingdoms of the time. Probably some previously spoken of allegory here since the point was that satan lied and said he'd make Christ ruler over everything if he would fall down and worship him.

Did you ever have any discussions with WhoDeyJon?  He is a classic example of an evangelical inerrancy proponent who was very quick to point out to other Christians their interpretation of the Bible was incorrect if it wasn't inline with his beliefs.  He believed the Earth was formed in seven 24 hour Earth days because that is what the Bible says.  Any other belief is incorrect.  So if they Bible says you could see all the kingdoms from one mountain top then that is exactly what WhoDeyJon would tell us is correct.

Part of the problem with these discussions is ascertaining which type of Christian you are debating; a WhoDeyJon or a rfaulk34.  Some people are reasonable and others aren't.  My wife belongs to a UU church.  I'm not a member, but I go with her when I can.  (Nine year old daughter slept in so I'm at home with her today.)  What I like about the UU church is they accept all beliefs and they don't try to make anyone's beliefs to conform to a specific doctrine.  If all faiths were like that this Earth would be a much better place.

If people of every faith respected others beliefs and life choices while still disagreeing, I doubt I would be here typing any of this.  However, when I see people of one faith discriminating against others based upon their faith and trying to impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation I can't keep my mouth shut.

You seem to be a reasonable person, so if I have offended you I apologize.  My remarks aren't directed at reasonable people, but the WhoDeyJon's of the world regardless of their faith.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: At the time? Hard to say. Though considering much of the Bible is allegorical and we are talking about the supernatural here, so the explanations anyone tries to give as far as literal interpretations is going to be ludicrous. Like I said before, those trying to use this in their argument are the same ones that will deride those taking the Bible literally in other instances for their positions.

The Bible is filled with allegory. Language used to paint a picture that the people can identify with. Using the literal in attempt to either prove or disprove anything is ignorant.

Two words...Biblical inerrancy.

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2015, 12:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Two words...Biblical inerrancy.

Your point being? Biblical inerrancy is a belief primarily held by evangelicals and is not a belief held by the majority of mainstream Christians or Jews. Using the phrase does nothing to negate anything I said.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 02:13 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I don't believe that. I don't expect science to be omniscient and i have no issues with new ideas replacing old ones, when they're proven inaccurate. 

Seeking knowledge isn't a bad thing. Limiting the seeking because you (generally speaking) think one side disproves the other when it hasn't/can't, can and usually is, bad.

You can say one side is worse than the other but i still call it a generalization because i know plenty of people that don't think that way. Of course, it's the individual's prerogative if they want to curse the darkness instead of lighting a candle. But that's always wrong.

For the most part I agree.  Unfortunately, during the course of history humanity needed to develop the word "heresy" so we could communicate to others why a "heretic," such as Giordano Bruno was being burnt at the stake for believing the universe was infinite instead of Church doctrine.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 09:37 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I wasn't there so i tried explaining the relevant point instead of scrutinizing each word and judging a literal vs allegorical meaning. 

If you prefer to get hung up on how it's worded instead of focusing on the message, so be it.

Yet, many a discussion or sermon revolves around one word many times.  "Day," for example.  Some people believe it is 24 Earth hours while others believe a "day" for God could be an epoch to us.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 11:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It amazes me how hard some folks try to poke holes in the scripture. What are they so afraid of?

Some defend every word because if one word is wrong it calls everything into doubt.  If the Bible is wrong about "x" then the Bible could be wrong about the afterlife is what it boils down to.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your point being? Biblical inerrancy is a belief primarily held by evangelicals and is not a belief held by the majority of mainstream Christians or Jews. Using the phrase does nothing to negate anything I said.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

I didn't claim it negated anything you wrote.  I simply added it as a factor in the discussion.  According to the Pew Research Center, Evangelicals comprise a significant portion of our population.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-14-2015, 11:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It amazes me how hard some folks try to poke holes in the scripture. What are they so afraid of?

The bible writers make it all too easy.

Were does "fear" come into play?

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2015, 01:08 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: The bible writers make it all too easy.

Were does "fear" come into play?

I think it is pretty obvious why a non-believer would be afraid that the scripture it true. Fear comes into play with the compulsion to have to "prove it wrong."

In this very thread it was pointed out that the world was a circle when seen from above; The only object that could appear as a circle from any vantage point from above would be a sphere. Folks quickly stated that this meant it was a flat disc. A flat disc would not appear to be a circle when viewed from any other vantage point except direct above it and at it's center. There is also scripture of a horizon at which day is separated from night, this can only happen in a sphere.

Yet folks are so afraid that this may be true that they insert things in various parts of the scripture that are never stated; such as they saw the whole world from a mountain or bring up a tree that was part of a dream.

If folks were not afraid that the word might be true they wouldn't try so hard to prove it is. They attempt to console themselves with  their "intellect". Luckily it is not too late to fill yourself with something much greater; you just have to believe and not be so "smart".

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2015, 01:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

I didn't claim it negated anything you wrote.  I simply added it as a factor in the discussion.  According to the Pew Research Center, Evangelicals comprise a significant portion of our population.

A decreasing and non-majority section of even Christians in our country, let alone the population as a whole. Also, the country is not indicative of the entire Christian population.

Regardless of all of that, the concept of Biblical inerrancy or literalism is irrelevant to the conversation, really. As I said, those who approach it that way are ignorant. Using it on the other side of the argument is just as ignorant.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-14-2015, 11:13 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Put it all together:  Satan taking Jesus to a really tall mountain to see all the kingdoms, a tree that's so tall everyone can see it.  Come on man, they clearly thought the Earth was flat.  You conveniently choose to ignore this or make ridiculous excuses for it.

I think you just glossed over the fact that the tall tree wasn't really a tall tree. So, you shouldn't really be using it as an example in your argument.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it is pretty obvious why a non-believer would be afraid that the scripture it true. Fear comes into play with the compulsion to have to "prove it wrong."

In this very thread it was pointed out that the world was a circle when seen from above; The only object that could appear as a circle from any vantage point from above would be a sphere. Folks quickly stated that this meant it was a flat disc. A flat disc would not appear to be a circle when viewed from any other vantage point except direct above it and at it's center. There is also scripture of a horizon at which day is separated from night, this can only happen in a sphere.

Yet folks are so afraid that this may be true that they insert things in various parts of the scripture that are never stated; such as they saw the whole world from a mountain or bring up a tree that was part of a dream.

If folks were not afraid that the word might be true they wouldn't try so hard to prove it is. They attempt to console themselves with  their "intellect". Luckily it is not too late to fill yourself with something much greater; you just have to believe and not be so "smart".

Do you recognize the objects in the picture?  They're called "flat washers."  The look like a circle when viewed from above.  They are also flat.  They are so damn flat they included "flat" in the name.  Simple.  Logical.  Rational.  You won't even acknowledge the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object.  By rejecting simple, rational logic you reinforce the stereotype that Christians like you reject simple, rational logic.  Why? Because if the Bible claims itself to be true and something is proven incorrect then it casts doubts about what the Bible says about the afterlife and their faith as a whole.  That's scary.  Religion assuages the fear and doubt of many about what happens after death.  I'm not looking forward to death, but I don't fear what happens after.  So why would I need to prove the Bible wrong?  Simple: I don't.

If you want to believe in a virgin birth and reanimation of the dead that is your business.  If two dudes want to get married that is their business.  When two dudes can't get married because you believe in a virgin birth and reanimation of the dead then we have a problem.