Three Steps to be Faithful to the Bible

[The Nice Centurion]

Some things are made clear in the Bible that most christians prefer to Avoid like Plague to aknowledge.

But to be really faithful to the bible is reverse to pick and choose.

So I found out that . . .

1) Bible faithful christians must believe in Flat Earth.

2) Bible faithful christians must be Geocentrists (Sun orbits the Earth).

3) Bible faithful christians must identify themselves as Advocates for Genocide.
I present my post from another thread for explanation.

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
I want to enter this debate by presenting William Lane Craigs apologetic for the Caanaite Genocide.

That W.L.C. even identifies himself as an apologist for Genocide was reason enough for Richard Dawkins to refuse debating him on stage.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lane-craig

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

By some it is seen as an Outrage that Dawkins refuses to give Genocide Advocacy some dignity here.
Them see this as a declarement of bancruptcy for New Atheism. Brights against Genocide they consider disrespectful.
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproj ... lane-craig

Am I right If no, then why not

[TRANSPONDER]

Our pal 1213 did better than most apologists in arguing why the Bible isn't talking about a flat earth, though I can't think why as he argued for a sun actually made later than the earth, when the earth is made from the sun, and if that isn't true, why not beleive in a flat earth, too? Not a few people do. As the interview below showeth.



The goalpost -shifting of the 'circle' of the earth being shewn by the Hebrew to be a compass - scribed circle, not a 'ball' as the hebrew might have used. to - yes - a circle but scribed on a globe. Hardly the pacific rim, which pays no part in the Bible, nor yet the Atlantic, which figures in the Hydroplate theory at least, but supposedly Eden, from the rivers of Meropotamia to Cush (Somalia) which seems to be the earth of the Genesis (Gen 2. 5- 12), though surely they knew of Greece and Carthage by then.

Anyway, sure all sorts of stuff can be made up to make the Bible work, but the name of the game was never what the Believer could invent to avoid admitting the Bible is wrong, but what the bod in the street, stopping to look at our debate thinks, since they are the ones to vote.

Fact is that the Genesis flat earth fits perfectly with what others believed at the time. Babylon believed in a divided firmament with waters above and waters below providing rain and rivers. The Egyptians believed in a sky goddess arched over the sprawling earth, and seemingly doing it Once was enough to populate the earth. The wording of Genesis makes perfect sense as an earth with features on it like marking on a stamped out seal. The mountains around this circular flat earth contained the sluices of the fountains of the deep which can be released just if God wanted to hose the place down. The sky was a dome (God living on top) with stars and planets trundling around the inside and so of course the sun was added later on once they got the bogey mechanism sorted out, and could be stopped to delay daylight...which was presumably still done by cosmic background radiation switching light on an off...or was it the sun now (which provides warmth so surely light, too) and the Cosmic hum could be turned off? Trouble with ad hoc excuses to get over problems cause by trying to make Genesis work is, it creates more problems.

Well, well, luckily I don't have to worry about that, since as a goddless, science - worshipping evolutionalist, I can go with what we know about how it is and it seems always was and don't have to wangle a book that seems to say otherwise, so it doesn't look ludicrously wrong.

[1213]

...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,

There is no mountain high enough to see every kingdom on a spherical (technically an oblate spheroid) Earth. This strongly implies a flat Earth. The only other possibility is that all kingdoms are in a small enough area that they could be seen from a very high mountain that is in the middle of this small area...

Even if the kingdom would be next to the mountain, do your really think a "glory of a kingdom" is something that you can seen for example from 2 miles away like something concrete with your physical eyes? How would you show glory of something?

If the story implicates something, it implicates, what was shown, was shown like mental image, or vision, not necessary television, because such "witchcraft" can't exist that could make it possible to see to another side of this planet, while staying in another side.

When I read the story, I don't think Jesus saw the kingdoms like you would see your backyard. It could be that it was told, there are all these kingdoms, in these directions and what is great in them. It is possible to see those things in minds eye. And because I don't think the things would be seen physically anyway, even if the kingdoms would be next to the mountain, it was something like mental image, or saying that in that direction, there is... ...and it is glorious.

[benchwarmer]

...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,

There is no mountain high enough to see every kingdom on a spherical (technically an oblate spheroid) Earth. This strongly implies a flat Earth. The only other possibility is that all kingdoms are in a small enough area that they could be seen from a very high mountain that is in the middle of this small area...

Even if the kingdom would be next to the mountain, do your really think a "glory of a kingdom" is something that you can seen for example from 2 miles away like something concrete with your physical eyes? How would you show glory of something?

You could see how well built it is, how rich it appears, how ornate it is, etc. You are forgetting already the first part of the sentence "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

If it was just a vision, why the trip to the highest mountain to accomplish it? I get it, instead of simply reading what is there plainly, you have to pretend it means something else in order to remove any whiff of a problem.

If the story implicates something, it implicates, what was shown, was shown like mental image, or vision, not necessary television, because such "witchcraft" can't exist that could make it possible to see to another side of this planet, while staying in another side.

All the story implies is that the people of that time didn't understand the Earth was a globe. This isn't the only spot in the Bible we see this. In fact, I'm aware of ZERO places in the Bible where it even implies a spherical Earth. Every mention implies a flat one. I've already conceded that no passage outright says one way or the other.

When I read the story, I don't think Jesus saw the kingdoms like you would see your backyard.

Of course not. You understand the world isn't flat with modern knowledge (I hope).

It could be that it was told, there are all these kingdoms, in these directions and what is great in them. It is possible to see those things in minds eye. And because I don't think the things would be seen physically anyway, even if the kingdoms would be next to the mountain, it was something like mental image, or saying that in that direction, there is... ...and it is glorious.

As usual, you are inserting a lot of context into the story that is not written there. The simple, logical, plain reading is that Jesus could see all the kingdoms from a very high mountain.

If we do, in general, what you are doing with this story, then every single story in the Bible is open to whatever we want to make of them (and no surprise, different sects of Christianity do just that).

Jesus breathed His last and died? Maybe that really means it was his last full breath. He started very carefully shallow breathing to play dead. He wanted to look dead so as to trick the Romans to take him down. This caused him to pass out into unconsciousness. He was stabbed by a spear, but didn't feel it because he was unconscious. Later, after they put him in a tomb, he woke up, push the stone away and walked off.

See, I can make stuff up that isn't written there too that also could fit with the actual words if you squint your eyes and need it to mean something it's obviously not trying to mean.

[1213]

You could see how well built it is, how rich it appears, how ornate it is, etc.

Really, you would see such things from few miles distance?

You are forgetting already the first part of the sentence "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

I don't forget that. I just think, that is possible without seeing them exactly, physically. It is possible that it was said to Jesus, look, in that direction there is the American kingdoms. And that would count as "showed him".

If it was just a vision, why the trip to the highest mountain to accomplish it?

Maybe the reason was that then atheists 2000 years later could claim there is a problem and act like they can't understand anything.

All the story implies is that the people of that time didn't understand the Earth was a globe.

But, it would have been even more difficult on flat earth to see the kingdoms on the opposite side.

The simple, logical, plain reading is that Jesus could see all the kingdoms from a very high mountain.

Yes, I think he could see them. I think you could also see them. And I think I can see them. It all depends on, in what level.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

One thinks of Matthew 5:11. I would encourage every believer here, both of you, to read that verse and realize this is it and take comfort. When atheists ignore us, that promised blessing is not granted.

Watch this copy/paste!
Mae von H - Copy/Paste: Otherwise, cutting and pasting is a pretty way poor way to present an argument. Shows a lack of ability to think and articulate thoughts.

Now let's review Matthew 5:11 that I will also copy and paste:
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me"

See the irony I was able to display via copying and pasting? Copy/paste can in fact be a great way to present an argument. For the one I presented, an ability to think will also be required.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #8]
So you are not a bible faithful christian!

I wonder what else in the bible you just skip and choose to ignore.

And why should I not be so fair and give the other side (Craig) a voice?
Better a christian presents the argument, than me possibly strawmanning try to present the view of the christians.

A bible faithful christian has to advocate genocide that happens on a flat earth orbited by the sun.

Because its in the bible

So you know, Mae von H doesn't believe in original sin either. This is something they have had to hide from their fellow Christians.
If someone can ignore original sin, I don't see why they couldn't ignore other parts of the Bible, like slavery and ordered genocide of other cultures.

[Clownboat]

An atheist and a hard polytheist couldnt be farer away from being samesided.

We two are as apart as the Sun (orbiting flat earth) and the Moon (which is according to you flat earthers a flat silver circle that is hold by magnetics above flat earth)!

Therefore you have to take up that Mao thingie with Transponder alone

This forum member (not The Nice Centurion to be clear) seems to be at war with atheists. To the extent that people like you (Centurion) and also myself get called atheists when we aren't.

This is cult thinking. Having a common enemy for a group to unite against (atheists in this case) creates unity within the group. There is no reason to take these (cultish IMO) claims as meaningful as they are just a defense mechanism in place to help maintain belonging to said group.

Again, my evidence is that when there is disagreement, fellow debaters automatically become atheists (something their group is united against), even if they are not one. Notice how the need to address actual arguments goes away when one can just label another as an enemy of sorts.

For example, if one wants to ignore the genocide in the Bible, they can say something like this:
Copy/paste Mae von H: "modern genocide was carried out by the atheists....". Notice how the genocide in the Bible that was pointed out is ignored and the favored enemy is placed front and center.
Just a defense mechanism at play IMO.