Flat Earth and the Bible

Post Reply New Topic

The topic had nothing to do with astrology. Your post was off-topic on the face of it, and had absolutely nothing to do with the train of thought over the past dozen or so posts in the thread (much less any other part of it). You just came out of the blue, disregarding what was being discussed, and posted that tripe.

And I'm not debating anyone who's best debating skill is apparently throwing around epithets. Nor will I be intimidated. When you have a civil tongue and a respectful attitude, perhaps then I'll consider it, but not until.


LKL, thanks for at least having the civility to listen and respond intelligently.

I've not left the thread.

And I still reserve the right not to respond to people who's idea of debate are to derail threads, bait people, and then throw ad hominems when things don't go their way.

This is a discussion forum, not a bully pulpit. Chosen is showing all the refined debating skills of a pub brawler. In any other religion forum I'm in, he would have been banned already. Just for the past three or four posts in this thread, if not others. There was absolutely no call for the personal attacks I received.

Oh, and in case the moderators haven't been paying attention:

Given the varying nature and differences between any given edition of the Bible, and the sects and subsects of those who follow its teachings, and also the various ways it is taught in different places, I dont think there is a hard and fast answer to "how its supposed to be read."

I attended a Methodist Church, though my grandfather was a Baptist minister, whilst my secondary school was headmastered by a Quaker, and our RE lessons were run by a Catholic. Likewise I married a Catholic, and two of my close friends at school were Jehovahs witnesses. My sons attend a Catholic school, whilst my current partner is Catholic. Thus I have several copies of the Bible, both new and very old, and have either experienced or heard about the ways it is taught, and frankly, Ive never had two sound the same. Added to that are my readings of various christian members interpretations and understandings on this forum from a wide variety of countries.

From all this, I surmise that arguing over how it is supposed to be read is a touch daft, because even the christian faiths are not in agreement over it. The same could be said for its actual content as well, I suppose.

So, the Bible may suggest that the earth is flat in some places, but there seems to be no definitive evidence that it does. To the best of everyones knowledge, the earth is NOT flat. How does the one reconcile with the other? Assuming that incontrovertible evidence of a Biblical claim to Flatness were uncovered, how would that be reconciled with the evidence that the Earth is anything BUT flat?

It would appear that the non-christian issue with the book is its mutable nature. It does appear that Christianity has a tendency to change its mind about which parts of the book are literal and which are figurative as time goes on, and this naturally makes people suspicious about the work as a whole. I recall that at one point, the "Adam and Eve" part of the story was claimed as literal, but in the light of various discoveries, became a much more figurative tale, not meant to be taken literally. This sort of.. flip-flopping I suppose.. doesnt help much, at least to my humble opinion.

As a side note.. it surprises me how vehement many Christians on this forum are, and how arrogant, and superior they seem to be when dealing with non-believers. "you're wrong and I'm right and God will shove redhot pokers in your eyes for eternity for disagreeing" doesnt seem like a very christian attitude. It seems a bit mean really, and a touch sinful. Pride and arrogance are sins, arent they?