Flat Earthers

[Husar]

I'm not sure where the bible says anything about the curvature of earth, but that aside, it is obviously a valid opinion and might be true as long as we can't prove it wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. And "photos from space" don't count, the people who made them could be biased!

[Legs]

I'm not sure where the bible says anything about the curvature of earth, but that aside, it is obviously a valid opinion and might be true as long as we can't prove it wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. And "photos from space" don't count, the people who made them could be biased!

Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.

[Montmorency]

Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.

That sounds closer to ancient Chinese tradition than anything in the Bible.

[Husar]

Close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Great_A'Tuin

[Montmorency]

No, not that. From Zhang, Q. (2015). Making the New World Their Own: Chinese Encounters with Jesuit Science in the Age of Discovery...

For the most part, the Chinese cosmological discourses on the earth and the seas
reflected this imperial ideological geography that postulated the Four Seas
circumscribing a square earth. Of the three major cosmological traditions in
premodern China, two of them—the Theory of Vaulted Heaven (Gaitian shuo)
and the Theory of Spherical Heaven (Huntian shuo)—as well as their later
variants, tacitly or explicitly subscribed to this world picture. The third, the
Theory of Infinite Empty Space (Xuanye shuo 宣夜說, literally, “theory of ‘ubiquitous
darkness’”), was simply too abstract to have much bearing on such a
matter. As already noted in Chapter 2, one version of the Theory of Vaulted
Heaven depicts a heaven covering the surface of the earth and pivoting daily
around its center point. The earth is said to be square at its base and domeshaped
on its top.

It's actually pretty hilarious how fiercely the Chinese held onto Flat Earth for a couple hundred years, though the political motivations underlying the debates for both the Jesuits and the Mandarins are important and worth reading.

[Legs]

That sounds closer to ancient Chinese tradition than anything in the Bible.

Maybe they borrowed it from the chinese when they wrote the book.

[Fragony]

Wasn't it Einstein who thought that the earth wasn't orbitting around the sun but vica versa. Supposedly he could back it up with calculations that are way too complicated for me. With some mathematical superpowers a very clever person who can troll everybody could probably prove that the earth is in fact flat, fourth dimension that sort of stuff, loopholes in time and space, even if anyone can see it isn't. This is fun really, more like a very good match of chess between grandmasters. Should you have an extraordinary level of intelligence, why not have some fun with it

[I of the Storm]

The scariest thing about them is that they usually aren't creationists/fundy christians. It's more closely affiliated to the whole field of conspiracy theories. AFAIK Flat Earthers are usually intersecting with Chemtrailers/Alien believers/whatever.

What I'm wondering all the time is, how do Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers get along?

[Gilrandir]

What I'm wondering all the time is, how do Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers get along?

Who said they do?

[Husar]

Wasn't it Einstein who thought that the earth wasn't orbitting around the sun but vica versa. Supposedly he could back it up with calculations that are way too complicated for me. With some mathematical superpowers a very clever person who can troll everybody could probably prove that the earth is in fact flat, fourth dimension that sort of stuff, loopholes in time and space, even if anyone can see it isn't. This is fun really, more like a very good match of chess between grandmasters. Should you have an extraordinary level of intelligence, why not have some fun with it

You mean like this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/...ves-earth-flat

I also hope that you're saying Einstein was joking.
Unless you want to talk about what is the standard for not moving in the universe. You could define it as your brain and then every time you shake the entire universe around your head, you have proven your point.

[Fragony]

You mean like this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/...ves-earth-flat

I also hope that you're saying Einstein was joking.
Unless you want to talk about what is the standard for not moving in the universe. You could define it as your brain and then every time you shake the entire universe around your head, you have proven your point.

I think he was trolling, but I don't know it was actually Einstein, but someone made a clear case. Things like this are fun no, a battle of minds much greater than ours (well mine at least). My much much much smarther brother once a tricked me into believing that 1+1 isn't in fact 2. I cheated and never told him I did and please don't tell him should you meet him because he foolishy links that I am just as smart as him, trust me I'm not. But this is all fun, and should be seen as that. So the earth is flat ok... it aren't religious nutjobs who claim it is so really so stock up on popcorn

EDIT, Just before some deranged viking pisses in my neck, I havent watched the video but know what it's about

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.

I... just.

OK, look. Christian flat-Earthers are a modern thing. The concept of a Flat Earth had been pretty much thrown out by about 300 BC based on the observation of the curvature of the Earth. Initially the Greeks believed the Earth was a Cylinder until they went far enough North to realise it was a sphere. I'm sure there were peasants in the medieval period who believed the Earth was flat, but they likely only travelled a few miles from their village. All educated people understood it was a sphere.

People didn't believe Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth they, accurately, believed his crews would starve before he circumnavigated the Earth and reached India. It was his dumb luck that he hit land that far South before he hit India, or rather before his crew had to resort to eating each other.

Flat-Earthers today are part of the anti-intellectual conspiracy movement, which is why they're concentrated in the US - people who glory in being ignorant because knowledge is a lie perpetuated by the "Elite" who are controled by Jewish bankers/Lizardmen/Aliens.

[Legs]

I... just.

OK, look. Christian flat-Earthers are a modern thing. The concept of a Flat Earth had been pretty much thrown out by about 300 BC based on the observation of the curvature of the Earth. Initially the Greeks believed the Earth was a Cylinder until they went far enough North to realise it was a sphere. I'm sure there were peasants in the medieval period who believed the Earth was flat, but they likely only travelled a few miles from their village. All educated people understood it was a sphere.

People didn't believe Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth they, accurately, believed his crews would starve before he circumnavigated the Earth and reached India. It was his dumb luck that he hit land that far South before he hit India, or rather before his crew had to resort to eating each other.

Flat-Earthers today are part of the anti-intellectual conspiracy movement, which is why they're concentrated in the US - people who glory in being ignorant because knowledge is a lie perpetuated by the "Elite" who are controled by Jewish bankers/Lizardmen/Aliens.

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

[Husar]

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

[Legs]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

You linked to young earth cretins.
But hey lets go with those dinosaurs on the arc fruitcakes.
From your link.. a solid arch. it supported the waters above and had door or windows to let in rain or snow and had the stars fixed to it.....Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.
Though of course the correct translation is bowl not arch, the bowl which covered the flat earth.

[Husar]

You linked to young earth cretins.
But hey lets go with those dinosaurs on the arc fruitcakes.
From your link.. a solid arch. it supported the waters above and had door or windows to let in rain or snow and had the stars fixed to it.....Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.
Though of course the correct translation is bowl not arch, the bowl which covered the flat earth.

First of all, no need to insult people just because they're probably wrong. If you call someone a cretin, how do you want to convince them of anything?
Secondly, what are you talking about? I linked to an article where they say the bible says the earth is round, which clearly contradicts your point that the bible supposedly says it is flat.

As for "Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.", I don't speak lizard, please write that again in English.

Not sure what arch you are talking about, even when I search on the page I linked, I can't find a single instance of the word arch.
After looking for the word "raqia", I assume this is what you're talking about:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th...-not-the-point

Links can help, you know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?

Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.

Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.

Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.

Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly :)

[Legs]

Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.

Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.

Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.

So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?

Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.
Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly

Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?

[Husar]

You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:

This second issue creates a conflict where they need not be one. The raqia “debate” is not the result of new evidence that has come to light. Our understanding of ancient perceptions of the cosmos has not been overturned by more information. The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the worldaccording to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them. Those views are also reflected in Genesis. If we keep this in mind, much of the conflict can subside.
[...]
It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true. They were in good company, for their understanding of what was “up there” was in harmony with what ancient peoples believed in general. God spoke to the ancient Israelites in a way they would readily understand.
[...]
It is important to be clear on what we have a right to expect from Genesis. This is central to making progress in the conversation between science and faith. It is a false expectation of Genesis that contributes to some heated exchanges about things like the description of the cosmos in Genesis.

The debate over the nature of the raqia is not a central issue. It is a symptom of a deeper, more fundamental disagreement over what the Genesis is and what it means to read it well. This is level where the truly important discussion must take place.

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th....H0Bqi4GU.dpuf

Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.
It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.

No, they aren't.

Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.

So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?

You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support. Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances, which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.

Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?

I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.

There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.

It rains​.