[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Strangelove]

That would be no, no, and if we can't be (relatively) civil to each other in a discussion (even when opinions are as widely divergent as our own), then it would be rather sad.

Agreed. I've seen no breach of the civil code.

Context makes all the difference and you don't get to tell me what I was conveying by my use of the word. You choose the definition that suits your finger-pointing. As I used the term in the context of the point I was making, I get to choose the definition I intended the word to convey, so I'm afraid all your 'dictionary slap' displays is an insistence that a word should mean what you want it to mean and not what it is intended to mean:

in•fer•ence

noun

a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning (notice the absense of the word "facts")

And you dont get to make up your own definitions for words.

It means that no matter how bizarrely ridiculous a parody of the belief or argument in question is, without some subtle hint it is impossible to distinguish the parody from the supposedly serious arguments of those whose beliefs or arguments are being parodied.

Still dont understand. Is your insistence that you cant grasp circular reasoning a parody? Is that what this is about?...Lolz.....Kalv you wily fox.....its a joke isn't it!?

From personal experience, no you can't, unless the aircraft is accelerating or decelerating in some way, like you can't tell whether a lift is going up or down when the initial accelerative force has ceased.

Lolz! Ok maybe you cant feel exactly what direction your going but you KNOW your moving! Is this a joke?

Unless there is rotation or linear acceleration, the vestibular system alone will not tell you whether you are moving or not.

Theres ALWAYS a change in speed! Thats what movement is all about. You sly fox this is a gag I know it now.

Requires rotation or acceleration. Have you ever sat in a stationary train, watched a train moving alongside and had the immediate sensation that your train is moving and not the other? What we see isn't necessarily what is happening.

For the tiniest of split seconds yeah....until I realised that I felt no movement.
Come on Kalv are you really gonna keep this up. This is ridiculous.

The majority of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

Again, apostacy is rife in these times.

Even if they didn't, pre-scientific mythology and ignorance is not evidential

Ok you reject the Bible...we get it. I would ask that you tone it down a bit on that front. I dont appreciate you calling belief in the Bible ignorance. This is a Christian website. And actually I thought it would be Christians only on this forum. I come here for fellowship and debate together. I dont hang in the apologetics forum for a reason.

Please refrain from calling my Holy Book "mythology" in the future. I see that as a breach in civil code. Thanks in advance.

 

[lordkalvan]

Agreed. I've seen no breach of the civil code.

We've maybe come close once or twice.

And you dont get to make up your own definitions for words.

I haven't; that's a dictionary definition and it specifies the meaning of the word and is applicable to the usage I intended. Inter alia, I have no idea what your parenthetical remark in respect of facts is supposed to imply. You are fond of quoting dictionary definitions to make peripheral points, so here's one for you:

evidence

Pronunciation:/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

(My bolding.)

Still dont understand. Is your insistence that you cant grasp circular reasoning a parody? Is that what this is about?...Lolz.....Kalv you wily fox.....its a joke isn't it!?

I rather think you are pretending to understand less than you actually do.

Lolz! Ok maybe you cant feel exactly what direction your going but you KNOW your moving! Is this a joke?

Only because you are in an aircraft or lift and you know from experience that aircraft and lifts move. It is entirely possible to travel in both and to be physically unable to tell that you are moving without external references.

Theres ALWAYS a change in speed! Thats what movement is all about. You sly fox this is a gag I know it now.

There is not always a change in speed; changes in speed occur during linear or vertical acceleration or deceleration or centrifugal forces. Absent such changes and external references, it is not possible to tell whether you are moving.

For the tiniest of split seconds yeah....until I realised that I felt no movement.

The point is that the visual input was strong enough to override your ability to detect whether or not you were moving - and you exaggerate when you say 'for the tiniest of split seconds'. From personal and reported experience the sensation can persist for a few seconds.

Come on Kalv are you really gonna keep this up. This is ridiculous.

Only 'ridiculous' because it illustrates various flaws in your arguments.

Again, apostacy is rife in these times.

There's that fallacy again.

Ok you reject the Bible...we get it. I would ask that you tone it down a bit on that front. I dont appreciate you calling belief in the Bible ignorance.

I didn't call belief in the Bible ignorance, I pointed to the obvious fact that those who wrote it, even if inspired by God, were ignorant of many aspects of the natural world and the cosmos and did their best to explain and interpret them in terms which made sense to them.

This is a Christian website. And actually I thought it would be Christians only on this forum.

There are non-Christian forums (R&R, TR, etc) where Christian can be found. People like encountering and debating with folk of widely differing points of view.

I come here for fellowship and debate together. I dont hang in the apologetics forum for a reason.

This is the part of the forum dedicated to scientific questions. Geocentricity and heliocentricity do not represent world views held exclusively by Christians on the one hand and non-Christians on the other.

Please refrain from calling my Holy Book "mythology" in the future. I see that as a breach in civil code. Thanks in advance.

A religious text can contain elements of mythology without detracting from its value as a spiritual inspiration and guide. That mythology stands as allegory and metaphor; it may simply be the best way in which the culture that produced the text in question could come to terms with explaining things that they didn't fully understand. The Bible (the Old Testament, anyway) amounts to far more than just spiritual guidance, standing as it does not as only a religious text, but also as a traditional story that is accepted as history and serves to explain the world view of the people who wrote it. This means that it need not be literally true in every respect, as you have pointed out when suggesting that certain references which can be implied as pointing to a flat Earth are not to be interpreted in such a strictly literal fashion. Sorry to go on at such length, but I hope this makes my position clearer when I refer to biblical mythology.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

– Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

 

[Strangelove]

Only because you are in an aircraft or lift and you know from experience that aircraft and lifts move. It is entirely possible to travel in both and to be physically unable to tell that you are moving without external references.

There is not always a change in speed; changes in speed occur during linear or vertical acceleration or deceleration or centrifugal forces. Absent such changes and external references, it is not possible to tell whether you are moving.

The point is that the visual input was strong enough to override your ability to detect whether or not you were moving - and you exaggerate when you say 'for the tiniest of split seconds'. From personal and the sensation can persist for a few seconds.

Oh right. Ok.....I get you Kalv. I just THINK I can feel movment cos I'm conditioned that way! Just like I can feel the rotation of the Earth cos its just an illusion. Can you see how your theoretical nonsense changes reality to non-reality??......like Monsieur Foucault's pendulum. It's not really moving its path its the Earth thats moving! Horswaggle!

Only 'ridiculous' because it illustrates various flaws in your arguments.

So feeling yourself moving in a vehicle without visual clues is nonsense to you then? Ok Kalv.

There's that fallacy again.

Well...you dont believe the Bible is the Word of God so your opinions on Christianity in general is of no weight.

I didn't call belief in the Bible ignorance, I pointed to the obvious fact that those who wrote it, even if inspired by God, were ignorant of many aspects of the natural world and the cosmos and did their best to explain and interpret them in terms which made sense to them.

This is your opinion simply becasue the Bible doesnt line up with your modern assumption based bunkum.

There are non-Christian forums (R&R, TR, etc) where Christian can be found. People like encountering and debating with folk of widely differing points of view.

This is the part of the forum dedicated to scientific questions. Geocentricity and heliocentricity do not represent world views held exclusively by Christians on the one hand and non-Christians on the other.

Nevertheless I'm going to ask an admin if non-believers are allowed in this forum. I was under the impression this was a forum for discussing science with fellow Christians. Hence the name "Christianity & Science".

Not that your scientific contribution isn't appreciated but your views on the Bible are something I'd rather not run into daily.

A religious text can contain elements of mythology without detracting from its value as a spiritual inspiration and guide. That mythology stands as allegory and metaphor; it may simply be the best way in which the culture that produced the text in question could come to terms with explaining things that they didn't fully understand. The Bible (the Old Testament, anyway) amounts to far more than just spiritual guidance, standing as it does not as only a religious text, but also as a traditional story that is accepted as history and serves to explain the world view of the people who wrote it. This means that it need not be literally true in every respect, as you have pointed out when suggesting that certain references which can be implied as pointing to a flat Earth are not to be interpreted in such a strictly literal fashion. Sorry to go on at such length, but I hope this makes my position clearer when I refer to biblical mythology.

Ok now I'm really confused. Do you believe in God or not. Are you Christian Yes or No?

Please answer these questions and dont just palm them off by saying its not relevant. This is fellowship and debate combined.

 

[lordkalvan]

Oh right. Ok.....I get you Kalv. I just THINK I can feel movment cos I'm conditioned that way! Just like I can feel the rotation of the Earth cos its just an illusion. Can you see how your theoretical nonsense changes reality to non-reality??......like Monsieur Foucault's pendulum. It's not really moving its path its the Earth thats moving! Horswaggle!

If you take this from what I have argued, then you have quite failed to understand the arguments I have tried to make. I notice you have failed to address them anyway. The argument is not that you are not moving as you seek to suggest (the ol' bait 'n' switch again), but that without external input to your sensory system you are unable to detect that you are moving (an aircraft not undergoing acceleration or deceleration) or that you mistake that you are moving when in fact you are not (the train moving alongside your own stationary train).

So feeling yourself moving in a vehicle without visual clues is nonsense to you then? Ok Kalv.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the point I made.

Well...you dont believe the Bible is the Word of God so your opinions on Christianity in general is of no weight.

That is not the point; the point is being able to recognize a fallacy when it is paraded in front of me. Also, I said that the Bible could be inspired by God, but interpreted by fallible men. Men make mistakes, including you and me.

This is your opinion simply becasue the Bible doesnt line up with your modern assumption based bunkum.

If your best argument is to call anything you disagree with 'bunkum' and 'horswaggle' (?), then I guess you must have shot your bolt.

Nevertheless I'm going to ask an admin if non-believers are allowed in this forum. I was under the impression this was a forum for discussing science with fellow Christians. Hence the name "Christianity & Science".

I thought most of Christianity was apostate according to your previous comments about biblical scholars and other Churches that take a different stance to your own. Do you want to ostracize them as well? After all, they're apostates. As you are aware, posting in this forum requires permission and I have been granted that permission without any attempt on my part to misrepresent by beliefs.

Not that your scientific contribution isn't appreciated but your views on the Bible are something I'd rather not run into daily.

I was trying to clarify my understanding so that you could better understand my arguments. If you present a particular claim based on your interpretation of the Bible, you must expect to have that interpretation challenged by those who disagree with it - for whatever reason. I have noticed that other Christians have done this. Do you not appreciate their views either?

Ok now I'm really confused. Do you believe in God or not. Are you Christian Yes or No?

What is there to be confused about? Lots of religious texts provide spiritual and moral guidance, but only one of these is the book holy to Christianity. I have discussed this with Jason before. The best way I can state my position is to describe myself as a Christian atheist, i.e I believe the moral and ethical teachings of Christ are valuable, inspirational and worthy of following as best we can, but I do not believe in the divinity of Christ or in the patriarchal god(s) of the Abrahamic religions.

Please answer these questions and dont just palm them off by saying its not relevant. This is fellowship and debate combined.

Well, actually it's not all that relevant. Fellowship extends beyond the narrow confines of one's religion or sect.

 

[Strangelove]

.....without external input to your sensory system you are unable to detect that you are moving (an aircraft not undergoing acceleration or deceleration)

Give me any documentation that backs up this ridiculous claim.

And remind me again how this particular argument effects the topic in general?? Lol. How did we get into this?

Hold on:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok I just read back to post #316 when I said this:

Heliocentricity is not logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you do not have is real. Your position makes no sense without assuming that heliocentricity is preferred first...... which is what everything that led up to and including today's model of heliocentricity was developed to prove in the first place. The problem is that nothing ever did prove heliocentricity without assuming that heliocentricity was the preferred conclusion to begin with, which is what it is trying to prove! Why is it so hard for you to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness? Until you have observations and experience for Earth's movement your position is as plausible as aliens and abductions...... thus we should build our lives around the "fact" that they are the most reasonable and plausible explanation for all unknown phenomena!? Your arguments and examples are in fact examples, not of heliocentricity's plausibility, but rather foolishness of the highest order. Demonstrate or concede but don't use Geocentrism's evidence for heliocentricity by begging the question that heliocentricity is preferred...... because until you have that evidence for heliocentricity all the evidence supports Geocentrism without assuming anything. Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement. All subsequent observations and experiments have been consistent with no movement of the Earth and not one has shown itself to be for heliocentricity without assuming heliocentricity is preferred first, which is the question you beg and the circular fallacy you without fail, must invoke!

And your reply was this:

Eh, in short, no. Black out the windows of your airliner. What tells you you are moving? Or look through the windows at the ground on a cloudless day and tell me what 'common sense' inputs tells you that the airliner is not stationary and the ground is not moving underneath you?

How is your reply relevant to my point?

or that you mistake that you are moving when in fact you are not (the train moving alongside your own stationary train).

An extremely temporary and totally optical illusion.

That is not the point; the point is being able to recognize a fallacy when it is paraded in front of me. Also, I said that the Bible could be inspired by God, but interpreted by fallible men. Men make mistakes, including you and me.

But you dont believe in God so that doesnt make sense does it?

If your best argument is to call anything you disagree with 'bunkum' and 'horswaggle' (?), then I guess you must have shot your bolt.

It seems your best reply's whenever you get stuck is to simply attack my writing style. I have many more bolts left thanks.

I thought most of Christianity was apostate according to your previous comments about biblical scholars and other Churches that take a different stance to your own. Do you want to ostracize them as well? After all, they're apostates.

Not at all. I want to talk to them becasue there is the potential for them to come out of Babylon and realise the truth of God's Word. They are believers. You seem to have made the decision that God doesn't exist and are set in your ways in that regard so I'm well advised to seperate myself from your kind. However I will continue to communicate for the benefit of others who read the thread so that they may see that your theoretical twaddle doesnt win the day!

I was trying to clarify my understanding so that you could better understand my arguments. If you present a particular claim based on your interpretation of the Bible, you must expect to have that interpretation challenged by those who disagree with it - for whatever reason. I have noticed that other Christians have done this. Do you not appreciate their views either?

Ah except all but you have discontinued the fight Mr.Kalvan. When I present Bible truths to the Brethren they dont fight back. Only the aethiest remains now. A couple may pop their heads in now and again but they see the truth of the Lords Word.

What is there to be confused about? Lots of religious texts provide spiritual and moral guidance, but only one of these is the book holy to Christianity. I have discussed this with Jason before. The best way I can state my position is to describe myself as a Christian atheist, i.e I believe the moral and ethical teachings of Christ are valuable, inspirational and worthy of following as best we can, but I do not believe in the divinity of Christ or in the patriarchal god(s) of the Abrahamic religions.

A very confused position indeed but I wont go into that.

 

[jasoncran]

i would comment and disagree continually with you sl on this, but shalt wast the time since you have even admitted that the bible doesnt state what you say without being called hebrew poetry.

so i monitor the arguements and also i know when to quit.

 

[Strangelove]

i would comment and disagree continually with you sl on this, but shalt wast the time since you have even admitted that the bible doesnt state what you say without being called hebrew poetry.

so i monitor the arguements and also i know when to quit.

How about Joshuas long day? You never addressed that?

Is that Hebrew poetry too?

 

[jasoncran]

God did the stop the earth, not the sun, from our it would look that way.

would you ask the lord how he healed if he did.

so that is the way he did it, he stopped the earth.

and never told joshua how he did it.

God wrote the bible by using men, meaning direct dictation(some parts of joshua are just that) and also the situations that men found them selves in , and the lord lead them to write about that. and also did miracles in that situation. that is the case with joshua in that story.

joshua asked the lord to hold the sun, and god stopped the earth.

joshua didnt need to know that the earth moved, only that God is in control of the universe.

would you also say that God wears men like clothing cause that too is in a historical book? the story of Gideon.

read of him in the book of judges and what it says the lord did with him.

 

[lordkalvan]

Give me any documentation that backs up this ridiculous claim.

Ever been to an IMAX 3D cinema? Did it make you think you were moving, even though you knew perfectly well you were sat in your seat?

Here's a lengthy extract from a discussion on a website run by some of your favourite people:

The mechanics of how the semicircular canals actually function to "sense" angular acceleration may be more easily understood by reviewing the physics of inertia. The Law of Inertia states that "a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." This is important because angular acceleration and deceleration primarily affect the semicircular canals and entirely depend on the relative movement of endolymph with respect to the cupula.


The effects of angular acceleration on the semicircular canals This means that if you were to begin accelerating along one of the three planes of rotation (pitch, roll, or yaw), structural components of the corresponding semicircular canal would begin moving immediately since they are attached to the rest of your head. However, the endolymph within that particular semicircular canal would tend to "remain at rest" due to inertia. It would lag behind the structural components, deflecting the cupula and generating a nerve impulse to the brain.

Initially, the membranous tubular and cellular structures move but the fluid does not. Thus, there is relative movement between the fluid and the rest of the semicircular canal. Eventually, due to friction and the drag it induces, the fluid begins to move at the same speed as the components within which it is contained. When this occurs, the cupula is not deflected and, even though your body is continuing to angularly accelerate, the acceleration is not "sensed". You incorrectly perceive that you are stationary.

Now, let's stop your angular acceleration suddenly. What happens? The moving fluid now has momentum and so it continues to move until friction and drag bring it to a stop. In other words, fixed structures of your semicircular canal stop immediately (since they are still attached to your head which is still attached to your body) but the endolymph fluid continues to move in the direction of the previous movement. The Law of Inertia also states that a body in motion will continue in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Now, the cupula and the embedded hair cells are bent in the opposite direction. This causes you to incorrectly sense that you are accelerating in the direction opposite to your previous acceleration, even though you are completely stopped!

Source: NASA Education - Human Vestibular System in Space

And remind me again how this particular argument effects the topic in general?? Lol. How did we get into this?

Shoot, if you can't remember, how do you expect me to?

Hold on:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok I just read back to post #316 when I said this...

And your reply was this...

How is your reply relevant to my point?

Without rehashing the whole post, the quoted reply on my part was in response to your argument that 'Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement', which is true enough, but does not lead inevitably and unquestioningly to the inference you wish to draw from it.

An extremely temporary and totally optical illusion.

But still a valid demonstration of the empirical fact that your senses are not always a reliable guide to what you think is happening to you.

But you dont believe in God so that doesnt make sense does it?

Could admits the possibility of one (or even many) gods, but one thing is certain and that is that men (and women) are responsible for writing down and interpreting religious texts.

It seems your best reply's whenever you get stuck is to simply attack my writing style.

Not your writing style, but the lack of reasoned answers in the replies being referred to.

I have many more bolts left thanks.

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley.

Not at all. I want to talk to them becasue there is the potential for them to come out of Babylon and realise the truth of God's Word. They are believers.

So I guess you meant to refer to them as heretics rather than apostates, then?

You seem to have made the decision that God doesn't exist and are set in your ways in that regard so I'm well advised to seperate myself from your kind. However I will continue to communicate for the benefit of others who read the thread so that they may see that your theoretical twaddle doesnt win the day!

Dear me, 'your kind'. may I just say that I reciprocate the sentiments you've expressed here.

Ah except all but you have discontinued the fight Mr.Kalvan. When I present Bible truths to the Brethren they dont fight back. Only the aethiest remains now. A couple may pop their heads in now and again but they see the truth of the Lords Word.

Really? Are you sure about that? Jason seems to have just disagreed with you about this.

A very confused position indeed but I wont go into that.

I'm sorry you find my explanation so difficult to understand. Actually, there isn't anything confused about it; it's really quite simple and straightforward. Many other non-Christian religious leaders provide worthy role-models for a way of living and the attitudes we should develop towards our fellow, without it being a requirement that one accepts and acknowledges their religious beliefs in order to find something valuable in their teachings.

 

[Strangelove]

God did the stop the earth, not the sun, from our it would look that way.

would you ask the lord how he healed if he did.

so that is the way he did it, he stopped the earth.

and never told joshua how he did it.

God wrote the bible by using men, meaning direct dictation(some parts of joshua are just that) and also the situations that men found them selves in , and the lord lead them to write about that. and also did miracles in that situation. that is the case with joshua in that story.

joshua asked the lord to hold the sun, and god stopped the earth.

joshua didnt need to know that the earth moved, only that God is in control of the universe.

would you also say that God wears men like clothing cause that too is in a historical book? the story of Gideon.

read of him in the book of judges and what it says the lord did with him.

Oh ok. Thanks for clearing up what God MEANT to say.

Silly old God eh? Cant get his sentence structure correct!

Are you sure you want to add to God's Word?

Jason......why the confusion? Why didnt Joshua just ask God to stop the Earth if thats what is real?

Even if you want to claim that men wrote the Bible and isn't the inspired Word of God........then why wouldn't the Old Testament writers simply write the verse as follows. There was no heliocentric theory back then remember.

Why doesnt the verse read:

10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD
delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said
in the sight of Israel, Earth, stand thou still that the Sun be upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

Oh and whats going on with the moon? I assume we both agree that the moon is orbiting Earth yes? So did Joshua order the Moon to stop in the Heavens?

So he meant one thing for the moon but for the Sun........?.........?​

 

[jasoncran]

was Joshua a man of science or a warrior for the lord.

we know the answer to this
a warrior, so last time i checked joshua wasnt known to have studied plants or the things around him.

so FROM his knowledge and he told his scribe to write what Joshua told him.

Joshua didnt know the operation of the heavens so he wrote what he OBSERVED.

I cant observed and understand my asthma in order to get it healed. so do i ask the lord to heal the asthma or not.

ugh. please educate your self on how God used men to write the bible

some by direct dictation as in commands given to write.
others by inspiration as in he leads them to write via dreams(daniel)
others by writing their lives out(hoshea was told to marry a whore, and to redeem her and the lord used that show isreal)

it would help to actually have the h.s in you to understand., this is why a pastor and chruch is for. as men are called to expound on verses.

and that is the function of the church.

homechurch isnt you alone reading the word and on the internet learning the bible.

most homechruches arent in proper exegesis or are done with anger at the parent church they left , not a good reason to start a movement.

that isnt for this forum.

i will ask you this, do you need to understand the innerworkings of your disease to be healed.?

the doctor may tell you that how the lord did it or may not understand it.(a miracle). It doenst make it no less a miracle.

God does use the laws found in science since he created them.

I disagree with evolution on two bases.

one the entire theory of learning(skinners law) has serious holes as we learn not in random chance
two because how bible is to be properly exegised.

ok now then. is the bible a science book to you?
would you consult the genesis account for the disease you have?
would you let a doctor work on you if he only had the bible and didnt have the faith to heal you but rather said that in genesis this bone is there and you have an extra rib?

 

[Strangelove]

Ever been to an IMAX 3D cinema? Did it make you think you were moving, even though you knew perfectly well you were sat in your seat?

Your not addressing no feeling of MOVEMENT there which is what I asked about.

Here's a lengthy extract from a discussion on a website run by some of your favourite people:

The mechanics of how the semicircular ...... ((snore))

Source: NASA Education - Human Vestibular System in Space

From NASA??! About movement in weightless SPACE!?? LOLZ!

You got anything about how us folks on Earth cant feel movement?? :

Your really struggling on this one Kalvan. Even more so than usual budski.

Without rehashing the whole post, the quoted reply on my part was in response to your argument that 'Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement', which is true enough, but does not lead inevitably and unquestioningly to the inference you wish to draw from it.

It leads to the conclusion that the Earth is not moving and you have brought zero scientific evidence to prove otherwise so I'll go with my senses, scientific proof that the Earth is indeed stationary and the Word of God.

But still a valid demonstration of the empirical fact that your senses are not always a reliable guide to what you think is happening to you.

Not reliable for a split second no. Luckily though we have the ability to go outside and lay down on the ground in the open air on a still night and wonder at the majesty of God's created universe rotating around our stationary Earth and witness the complete and utter stillness for hours and hours and hours and hours..........aaahhhhhhhhhhh. Praise God!

Could admits the possibility of one (or even many) gods, but one thing is certain and that is that men (and women) are responsible for writing down and interpreting religious texts.

Certain? Fact is it? Lolz. Maybe in your world Kalv. Us Christians happen to believe that the Word of God was guided to us by the Holy Spirit in truth. And when you work hard with the texts and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance when interpreting them you can indeed come to the truth. You should try it sometime.

Not your writing style, but the lack of reasoned answers in the replies being referred to.

Maybe its your non-acceptance of my reasoned answers you should be blaming. Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. Read the Gospels and decide if Christ is the Son of God. Have you tried?

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley.

:twopistols

So I guess you meant to refer to them as heretics rather than apostates, then?

No apostate is fine

Dear me, 'your kind'. may I just say that I reciprocate the sentiments you've expressed here.

Feel free to seperate yourself from our kind. I'd prefer to dialogue with Christians.

Really? Are you sure about that? Jason seems to have just disagreed with you about this.

Jason is stubborn. It took me and others 20 odd pages to convince him that Jerusalem is the Whore of Babylon. We got there in the end though with God to guide us.

I'm sorry you find my explanation so difficult to understand. Actually, there isn't anything confused about it; it's really quite simple and straightforward. Many other non-Christian religious leaders provide worthy role-models for a way of living and the attitudes we should develop towards our fellow, without it being a requirement that one accepts and acknowledges their religious beliefs in order to find something valuable in their teachings.

Try reading the Gospels and deciding if Christ is the Son of god. You may get even more out of the Bible!

 

[jasoncran]

StrangeLove

It WASNT YOU that did change me on this but the POSTING of BIBLICAL verses on that.

VIC posted the verses and a link to that site. i read the verses. none of it had to do with you and your poor exegesis and nor the conspiracies you posted.

i already had the predispostion to that. before i posted my counters to you. I wanted you point me in the direction of the bible that shown that ,and you never did. Vic obliged.

this time I wont see what you see as i can see how that joshua merely wrote what he saw.

he observed the sun stop, but did it or the earth. its easily to say the earth as we know that the earth moves. so we can see that joshua didnt know that the earth moved nor did he know the movements of heaven reasonibly.

it neither affects the exegesis of that book as that is what he stated plainly.

our eyes arent the means to which we observe things move in heaven all the time. we need instruments and these instruments have been used. YOU dont want to agree with the conclusion that lk has stated.


so if i launch you into the region beyond jupiter then that should be hell, so i could send you to hell if that was true.
how can i send you to hell as only God does that.

and what of the states of matter as that aether thing must have pressure to it

this is what current chemistry says on states of matter.

solid
liquid
gas
plasma

 

[lordkalvan]

Your not addressing no feeling of MOVEMENT there which is what I asked about.

Just making a further in respect of the ease with which senses can be misled and confused.

From NASA??! About movement in weightless SPACE!?? LOLZ!

Of course you handwave it away because it shows that your assertions are baseless and that the inability to detect motion in the absence of external forces that act upon the human vestibular system is real and well-understood.

You got anything about how us folks on Earth cant feel movement?? :

If you don't get it my best guess is that it's because you don't want to get it, but then that's rather what I expected.

Your really struggling on this one Kalvan. Even more so than usual budski.

The only struggling I see going on here is the sight of yourself resisting the obvious conclusion that you are wrong on this particular subject.

It leads to the conclusion that the Earth is not moving and you have brought zero scientific evidence to prove otherwise so I'll go with my senses, scientific proof that the Earth is indeed stationary and the Word of God.

Your senses mislead you, you have presented no scientific proof that bears scrutiny that Earth is stationary, and your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Word of God is clearly at variance with most of the rest of Christianity.

Not reliable for a split second no. Luckily though we have the ability to go outside and lay down on the ground in the open air on a still night and wonder at the majesty of God's created universe rotating around our stationary Earth and witness the complete and utter stillness for hours and hours and hours and hours..........aaahhhhhhhhhhh. Praise God!

Well, if you want to go on maintaining this illusion, that is your right.

Certain? Fact is it? Lolz. Maybe in your world Kalv. Us Christians happen to believe that the Word of God was guided to us by the Holy Spirit in truth. And when you work hard with the texts and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance when interpreting them you can indeed come to the truth. You should try it sometime.

Whatever you say. Again, I refrain from commenting directly on the Bible as you have expressed disquiet at my doing so and asked me not to. However, you will not be at all surprised that I disagree with your assertions here for reasons that I am fully prepared to provide in the appropriate situation.

Maybe its your non-acceptance of my reasoned answers you should be blaming.

If there was a reasoned answer in the posts I am referring to, then it is notable only in ts absence.

Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. Read the Gospels and decide if Christ is the Son of God. Have you tried?

I decline to be drawn for reasons that you are quite familiar with. Again I suspect an ulterior motive in this subtle baiting that you are engaging in. It's not a game I intend to play.

:twopistols

Heh-heh.

No apostate is fine

Then we obviously have different understandings of what apostate means.

Feel free to seperate yourself from our kind. I'd prefer to dialogue with Christians.

You are under no obligation to respond to my comments. Feel free to ignore them; you think they're nothing but bunkum and horswaggle at best and lies at worst, anyway. The dialogue remains open because you continue it.

Jason is stubborn. It took me and others 20 odd pages to convince him that Jerusalem is the Whore of Babylon. We got there in the end though with God to guide us.

Jason seems to have a slightly different take on your version of this debate.

Try reading the Gospels and deciding if Christ is the Son of god. You may get even more out of the Bible!

I already have and I have already reached my decision. Again, if you have found my previous comments on the Bible so distasteful that you felt inclined to raise my presence in this discussion area with the administrators, I can only suspect your motives in persistently trying to draw me out on the subject after you have asked me not to offend you with my opinions and to refrain from posting them.

 

[jasoncran]

strangelove, we know who is the athiest on this forum and tolerate them so long as they abide by our rules.

lk, has been on this site longer then me.

 

[lordkalvan]

...Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is seen to be what it really is, that is, LESS than half a light day thick (eight billion mile radius)..

Wow, I missed this gem first time round. If the Universe has a radius of 8 billion miles and is rotating around a geostationary Earth every 24 hours (which I guess it must be as the same stars keep reappearing on a nightly basis), then the most distant of those stars must be travelling at - ummm 2 pi r miles per day, which equals about 50 billion miles per day (can you check my math?), which is something over 2 billion miles per hour, which is - what - 33,000,000 miles per minute, so what's that? A modest 500,000+ miles per second? Refresh my memory as to what lightspeed is? And you choke on Earth orbiting the Sun with a speed only a modest 32 times greater than a rifle bullet?

One minor correction, Earth's average orbital speed is about 67,200 mph; I can see why you might prefer to push 66,600 mph, however.

 

[Free]

You call belief that the the Word of God is correct in all matters pseudo-theology?

Saying the bible is Truth in all matters is a disservice?
Double

I think Earth at the centre of the universe is most certainly implied by the bible:

1) Heaven--God’s present location (throne room) at the very extremity of the third zone of the firmament--is only conceivable when considered from the vantage point of a stationary earth at the center of the universe.

2) God changes His location from that extremity of the third zone of the present Heaven in this first creation to a new location on the promised New Earth where it is stated that He will dwell with mankind eternally (Rev. 21:3). (Q.) But where is that New Earth to be located relevant to the New Heavens? (A.) The Center, just as in the Old Earth pattern.

3) We read that this old earth is dissolved and melts away (II Pet. 3:10-13), and that it flees away and is never seen again (Rev. 20:11) nor is even "remembered nor comes to mind" (Is. 65:17). So there is a certain place in these old heavens where this first earth is located in God’s "stage one" Plan for Eternity...before it is destroyed and removed from that location forever. (Q.) Where is that spot? (A.) Scripturally, the center of the universe.

4) John, The Revelator, said: "...I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away....And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven...." (Rev. 21:1,2). (Q.) Down to where? (A.) The New Jerusalem that "comes down" rests on the ground of the New Earth in the same way the Old Jerusalem is built on the ground of this Old Earth. When the city "comes down out of heaven", the New Earth on which it sets comes with it. The statement that the New Earth with the New Jerusalem "comes down out of heaven", i.e., out of the most elevated part of the "heaven/ firmament" of the present structure, indicates that it is coming to the same structural location in the New Heavens as the old earth Biblically occupies in the present heavens (until it flees away and is forgotten: Rev. 20:11; Is. 65:17), i.e., the center of the (New) Universe.

5) "...Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Rev. 21:3). (Q.) So, again, where is this eternal New Earth dwelling place of God and redeemed mankind located in the New Heavens? (A.) In the New Jerusalem on the New Earth in the center of the New Heavens.

6) For the New Jerusalem on the New Earth to be coming down out of the disappearing Old Heavens into the New Heavens means there is a point at the center where the New Earth has to stop lest it go right past the center and somewhere back into the firmament zone much like it occupied in the Old Earth system! So, does this New Earth stop coming down when it reaches the spot that is the precise and immovable center of the New Heavens? Well, Scripturally, logically, and probably electromagnetically, that is where it will stop and remain eternally. Scripturally, there is no detectable difference in the structure of the New Universe with its New Heavens and New Earth except that the eternal thrones of God the Father and Jesus the Son are moved from their location in the most elevated part of the 3rd heaven in this temporary universe to the center of the New Heavens in the eternal universe. This is the location that befits the Creators of this New Universe, New Earth, and New Jerusalem (Is. 65:17,18; 66:22; John 14:2), And, again, Scripturally, it differs from the old earth design only in the re-location of the New Jerusalem on the New Earth from its present "construction site" at the extremity of the 3rd heaven to the center of the eternal New Heavens (II Cor. 12:2,4; John 14:2; Is. 66:22). As noted, the scale of the New Earth and the New Heavens--as required by the obviously literal dimensions of the New Jerusalem: Rev.21:16,17--will doubtless be enormously larger).

7) Since this New Earth will be immovable at the center of the revolving moon and sun in the New Heavens (Is. 66:23), and since Jesus has been working on townhouse mansions in the New Jerusalem for the redeemed on that same New Earth (John 14:2,3), it is a Scriptural imperative that the relocation of the New Earth at the center will emulate the location of the old earth which Scripture placed at the center in the first creation (Gen. 1:1-16; Josh. 10:12)

Wow. Far too many assumptions and poor biblical interpretation. So, yes, pseudo-theology.

And on that note I will bow out of the discussion. Nothing good can come from this.

 

[Strangelove]

Wow, I missed this gem first time round. If the Universe has a radius of 8 billion miles and is rotating around a geostationary Earth every 24 hours (which I guess it must be as the same stars keep reappearing on a nightly basis), then the most distant of those stars must be travelling at - ummm 2 pi r miles per day, which equals about 50 billion miles per day (can you check my math?), which is something over 2 billion miles per hour, which is - what - 33,000,000 miles per minute, so what's that? A modest 500,000+ miles per second? Refresh my memory as to what lightspeed is?

Who said the furthest stars were 8 billion miles away? Thats the probable extremety of the universe not the starry realm. After the last stars you then have God's throne room and the waters above the firmament.

1) The Earth is the focal point of everything...the first created part of the structure of God’s Creation of the Universe. (Since the universal acceptance of Copernicanism, of course, cosmologists have relegated the Earth to the status of an infinitesimal speck of cosmic flotsam indebted to the sun’s fortuitous proximity for its ineffable array of plant and animal and human life and all that goes with it. Copernicanism re-activated a not-so-subtle form of Pagan Sun-Worship and we call it "Modern Theoretical science".)

2) The second part of the structure of the universe is the space--and its components (the atmosphere where birds fly, the clouds, magnetosphere, Van Allen Belt, ozone layer, etc.)--between the Earth and the limit of its gravitational and/or electromagnetic influence. This distance is said to be 216,000 miles, just 5000 miles short of the Moon at perigee or 36,000 miles at apogee.

3) The third part of the structure of the universe is the one that starts where the Earth’s influence ends, i.e., basically the Moon, and also includes the sun and all the way to the end of the accepted accepted influence of the sun (the heliopause)...which is the (recently demoted) planet Pluto. This third part of the Biblical structure of the universe is the second of three regions or zones of what the Scriptures call the "Firmament" and the "Heavens". Scripturally, there are three "heavens" (II Cor. 12:2), i.e., three parts to the "firmament". This part--the moon, sun, and planets--constitute the second part of the firmament...or the second heaven.

4) The fourth part of the structure of the universe is the realm of the stars. Scripturally, as we shall see, the stars are in the 3rd Heaven of the firmament.

5) The fifth part of the structure of the universe according to the Scriptures is a zone above the stars where God’s temporary Throne and all His activities are located (Is. 66:22; 65:17; Jn. 14:2; Rev. 21:1, 3; etc.). This is still the 3rd heaven (II Cor. 12-2), i.e., it is still the 3rd part of the firmament where the stars are located... but is it is above and beyond the last star in that zone.

6) The sixth and final part of the structure of the universe according to the Scriptures (explained just ahead) is called "the waters above the firmament". (This sixth part is the outer limit beyond which the existence of no other entity is indicated).

That’s it. That is a verbal description of a static cut-away view of the physical structure of the universe from the Earth outward, according to the Bible.

And you choke on Earth orbiting the Sun with a speed only a modest 32 times greater than a rifle bullet?

Lolz. I choke on the Earth even moving at 1mph.

One minor correction, Earth's average orbital speed is about 67,200 mph; I can see why you might prefer to push 66,600 mph, however.

I dont push any orbital speed because the Earth isn't orbiting anything and you nor anyone else has brought an iota of scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

2

 

[Strangelove]

Just making a further in respect of the ease with which senses can be misled and confused.

And also entirely avoiding the issue of bringing documentation forward relating to the comical issue of high speed movement going completely unfelt on Earth.

Of course you handwave it away because it shows that your assertions are baseless and that the inability to detect motion in the absence of external forces that act upon the human vestibular system is real and well-understood.

Um...nah.....I handwave it becasue it's got nothing to do with detecting movement on Earth and everything to do with movement in weightless space. You are dodging the issue...not surprisingly because you have no answers

If you don't get it my best guess is that it's because you don't want to get it, but then that's rather what I expected.

More deflecting and dodging the issue. you should be a politician.

The only struggling I see going on here is the sight of yourself resisting the obvious conclusion that you are wrong on this particular subject.

Nope. My heads way above water on that front. The only obvious conclusions to be gleaned from any scientific evidence brought forward up till this point is that the Earth is not moving as shown by Michelson-Morley.

Interesting how you let our exchange regarding aether die out so quickly. Did you ever acknowledge that space is made up of stuff? Stuff that in its most general of terms was described (a century ago) as lumineforous aether in that experiment?

Your senses mislead you, you have presented no scientific proof that bears scrutiny that Earth is stationary, and your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Word of God is clearly at variance with most of the rest of Christianity.

Yes this is always the battle cry of assumption based theoretical science (guesswork). "Dont believe your God given senses or Bible. They are lying to you. Believe our occult mathematics. Believe the faulty musings and words of men"

Well, if you want to go on maintaining this illusion, that is your right.

Lol. You tell me that what I'm really seeing is an illusion. Lolz. Lets check the dictionary again shall we?

il·lu·sion

1. An erroneous perception of reality (Like calling reality non-reality)
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief (false belief being false science)
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception. (the plan being to remove God from the creation business)

It is you who is under the spell of mankind.

If there was a reasoned answer in the posts I am referring to, then it is notable only in its absence.

Take the theoretical blinkers off and it will widen your view.

I decline to be drawn for reasons that you are quite familiar with. Again I suspect an ulterior motive in this subtle baiting that you are engaging in. It's not a game I intend to play.

Baiting? Evangelizing to the unsaved is not baiting my friend.

You are under no obligation to respond to my comments. Feel free to ignore them; you think they're nothing but bunkum and horswaggle at best and lies at worst, anyway. The dialogue remains open because you continue it.

Oh you would love me to ignore you eh? Sorry bud. As long as you are spouting contra-Biblical material I will fight you for the benefit of the flock. The simple fact that I am Christian and you are not and that I can more than match you in the debate is enough for my brethren to see the light of the Word of God.

Jason seems to have a slightly different take on your version of this debate.

Indeed he is different from me in many ways.

I already have and I have already reached my decision. Again, if you have found my previous comments on the Bible so distasteful that you felt inclined to raise my presence in this discussion area with the administrators, I can only suspect your motives in persistently trying to draw me out on the subject after you have asked me not to offend you with my opinions and to refrain from posting them.

I will continue to evangelize to you as is my right. If you dont want to comment then fine. You have read the Gospels and deny that Jesus is the Son of God. Please dont take offence to this but that means you have the spirit of antichrist residing in you. As a Christian I must do what I can to help you. In the eyes of God it is my duty...and I pray for you.

 

[Strangelove]

StrangeLove

It WASNT YOU that did change me on this but the POSTING of BIBLICAL verses on that.

VIC posted the verses and a link to that site. i read the verses. none of it had to do with you and your poor exegesis and nor the conspiracies you posted.

i already had the predispostion to that. before i posted my counters to you. I wanted you point me in the direction of the bible that shown that ,and you never did. Vic obliged.

A simple thank you would be fine. The Holy Spirit moved me to make that thread. You wered dead set against at the start and by the end of it you were convinced. I posted much Biblical evidence. Thanks for the Brotherly love anyhoot.........?..........?.........?

this time I wont see what you see as i can see how that joshua merely wrote what he saw.

He observed the Sun stop in the sky and thats what he wrote. and thats what really happened. If he had a choice of asking the Lord to stop the Earth or the Sun why would he choose the Sun when that is the false assertion?

he observed the sun stop, but did it or the earth. its easily to say the earth as we know that the earth moves. so we can see that joshua didnt know that the earth moved nor did he know the movements of heaven reasonibly.

We dont know that the Earth moves though so why would you say that? Why dont you believe that the Bible is God's Word and he doesnt lie to us. Why do you believe the creation story is true but not this simple sentence about the Sun standing still in the sky?

our eyes arent the means to which we observe things move in heaven all the time. we need instruments and these instruments have been used. YOU dont want to agree with the conclusion that lk has stated.

You'd rather believe instuments and computers than your own God given senses for the truth? Oh boy. What happens when computers and instruments send back images of aliens on Mars. Are you going to believe? Are you going to bow down to that image?

so if i launch you into the region beyond jupiter then that should be hell, so i could send you to hell if that was true.
how can i send you to hell as only God does that.

HUH!?

and what of the states of matter as that aether thing must have pressure to it

this is what current chemistry says on states of matter.

solid
liquid
gas
plasma

What are you saying exactly about aether?