So - your position in this discussion is to simply rail at something you know nothing about (and refuse to learn)...???
SMH
![]()
On the other hand, the COTFSM has a great spaghetti dinner the last Friday of each month. It's a tough choice but I always err on the side of food.You want to school me in vain nonsense. The most useful purpose FE has is comedy.
If someone wants to teach me about The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster I'm not obliged to take them seriously.
I've already learned more than I care to know about this FE absurdity.
On the other hand, the COTFSM has a great spaghetti dinner the last Friday of each month. It's a tough choice but I always err on the side of food.
Lol. To quell the debate between flat meatballers and round meatballers they use ground beef in the sauce. Now the flat platers have clearly shown themselves to be less messy so I eat with them.I've heard their spaghetti with flat meatballs is very good.![]()
Lol. To quell the debate between flat meatballers and round meatballers they use ground beef in the sauce. Now the flat platers have clearly shown themselves to be less messy so I eat with them.
I wonder...do they eat in the dark there?You could try that new globalist restaurant, Plate Tectonics.
They conceal the true shape of the plate to make diners believe they are eating from a globe.
![]()
I'm not disputing the facts, because I have not verified whether they are true. I am disputing the conclusion because it is not based on all the relevant evidence.Do not let yourself become fixated on a single tree - look at the forest!
There is no possible way in the world that - according to the "workings" of the Ball Earth model - it should be a veritable never-ending frozen wasteland from 56 degrees South and further - while, as far as 80-something degrees North there exists a full spectrum of season, temperature, plant life, animals, etc.
All "equivalent" North/South points on a Ball Earth model Globe get the same amount of sunlight. (within a year cycle)
This cannot be disputed - it is Ball Earth 101.
Why would the climate in the "equivalent" north be so much different than in the "equivalent" south?
45 degrees north versus 45 degrees south
50 degrees north versus 50 degrees south
55 degrees north versus 55 degrees south
60 degrees north versus 60 degrees south
65 degrees north versus 65 degrees south
70 degrees north versus 70 degrees south
75 degrees north versus 75 degrees south
80 degrees north versus 80 degrees south
85 degrees north versus 85 degrees south
90 degrees north versus 90 degrees south
It is not just about the "poles" or the "Antarctic continent" - it is about 'everywhere'.
Go wash your hog and cogitate on it some more...
On the other hand, the COTFSM has a great spaghetti dinner the last Friday of each month. It's a tough choice but I always err on the side of food.
I wonder...do they eat in the dark there?
I'm not disputing the facts, because I have not verified whether they are true. I am disputing the conclusion because it is not based on all the relevant evidence.
Now... I have been waiting for YEARS for any FE proponent to to address the photos showing Northward shadows in Sydney, AU. Step up.
Am I the only one who heard the theme to Twilight Zone while reading this post.Never eat in a dark diner = they're hiding something = in your food..........
Am I the only one who heard the theme to Twilight Zone while reading this post.
Why do you bother me with such empty blather? Step up and respond to the evidence.The sun moves in the sky just as God said so many many times in His Word.
If you do not believe this = "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."
then your understanding is skewed from the start.
If you cannot see the Truth in Water that seeks it's own level 24/7 on Earth = then your understanding has been redirected by another.
the little girl let's go of her balloon
up up and away
gravity has no sway
lighter then air
it defies that which is not there
a.) Did you ever consider that they placed two separate robes on Him?
b.) Did you ever consider that they first placed a scarlet robe then possibly removed the scarlet for a more illustrious purple robe since the soldiers knew that He was called the King of the Jews?
c.) scarlet/red and purple are colors with significant meaning in the Scripture and at that time in history.
d.) Peace to everyone who is spinning thru space on a water ball that denies the Law of Physics
e.) d.) is brotherly humor just as i enjoy puns made my way - Peace
d.) Peace to everyone who is spinning thru space on a water ball that denies the Law of Physics
e.) d.) is brotherly humor just as i enjoy puns made my way - Peace
Or...maybe one was color blind...or...is evidence of the unreliability of eye witness accounts.I really enjoy the topic of the robe colour. It really brings to light the need for a good approach in interpretation in order to resolve what can look like a contradiction.
Some possibilities:
1) Two robes of each colour
2) A single robe showing both purple and red colouring (e.g. stripes or some other pattern)
3) A single robe with red on the outside and a purple lining on the inside, or vice versa, and maybe seen from different angles from the account
4) The light hit the robe in a way that one person saw red and the other person saw purple
5) A single magenta robe that was described as purple by one account and red by another (magenta is a type of red, magenta is also a type of purple, both descriptions would be true).
There may be more than just those interpretations, but one of the things that really comes out when we look at some of these interpretations is that an account of something never gives us all the details, just the important highlights (in some cases in the form of parable or metaphor). It is an objective truth spoken through a human perspective. And that was one of the points I was trying to express to John146.
I'm not sure why but the image of Spaceballs and the "we brake for no one" sign came to mind when you mentioned that.
- Peace and all the best (happy All Saints' day too)
I really enjoy the topic of the robe colour. It really brings to light the need for a good approach in interpretation in order to resolve what can look like a contradiction.
Some possibilities:
1) Two robes of each colour
2) A single robe showing both purple and red colouring (e.g. stripes or some other pattern)
3) A single robe with red on the outside and a purple lining on the inside, or vice versa, and maybe seen from different angles from the account
4) The light hit the robe in a way that one person saw red and the other person saw purple
5) A single magenta robe that was described as purple by one account and red by another (magenta is a type of red, magenta is also a type of purple, both descriptions would be true).
There may be more than just those interpretations, but one of the things that really comes out when we look at some of these interpretations is that an account of something never gives us all the details, just the important highlights (in some cases in the form of parable or metaphor). It is an objective truth spoken through a human perspective. And that was one of the points I was trying to express to John146.
I'm not sure why but the image of Spaceballs and the "we brake for no one" sign came to mind when you mentioned that.
- Peace and all the best (happy All Saints' day too)
Or...maybe one was color blind...or...is evidence of the unreliability of eye witness accounts.
That can get into sketchy territory because that is the perspective Moslems take on Christian scripture to promote their idea that it was actually just a "Jesus-lookalike" that was crucified instead of Jesus himself, and that the crucifixion accounts were honest but unreliable.
We should at least approach it from the perspective that God willed scripture to be true in all cases with the caveat that the context or meaning might be unclear in a given description. That the accounts are reliable but incomplete.
This is a great spinoff topic piece by itself, but in the context of the whole flat earth vs globe earth conversation, if we accept the premise that the Bible is written by "reliable narrators" we would still have to find a fitting alternative context to explain some of the verses that FE proponents use in FE position. Figurative language can be an approach for many verses, but we would need to determine a holistic convention for determining which verses would likely be figurative vs literal. Sometimes possible solutions are less obvious. The "magenta" solution for the robe question is an example that might counter our intuitive assumption that "purple =/= red", but "p =/= r" has one case where it isn't true (magenta).
I find that exploring the Greek in the New Testament is simpler than OT Hebrew because the context of the OT Hebrew has had Talmudic Judaism actively trying to reinvent what the language means for two millenia. Their solution to the New Testament is just to call it a lie or unreliable (honest but unreliable observations resulting from deceptive manipulations of demons rather than the works of God). The Old Testament poses more difficulty and need for attention because it is a secondary part of their core scripture (the Talmud is their central body of scripture), meaning that they have an invested interest in trying to claim that some interpretations contrary or incompatible with Christian scripture would be necessary interpretations. We should never trust at face value what a Talmudic Jewish scholar has to say about OT scripture for that reason. We can conservatively count all of the Talmudic Judaic opinion on OT scripture as basically just bad advice. But we can still evaluate their input against the whole of Christian scripture to see how sound it is.
And from individual interpretations often comes an overall approach to exegesis. E.g. using Kabbalah numerology. So if we start from bad advice, we can end up using a bad approach to understanding scripture, and from there end up in all sorts of strange concepts that are inherently unnecessary or worse that are contrary to scripture.
It can be difficult exploring OT scripture because of the mixed signals that can be recieved from nonChristian. Unfortunately, the creation account and flat earth accounts are all in the OT. So if we have a Talmudic Judaic scholar making claims that "these particular types of descriptions are never metaphor because... Kabbalah" it can confuse the issue because some Christians might not understand how it can be bad advice.
It might be the case that some of these "man's description vs objective truth" false dichotomies might come from Talmudic philosophy. And so we can address the symptom (the incorrect belief) or the root of the problem (sympathy or adoption of Talmudic philosophy), but preferably both.