"God cannot create a square circle"

[rhutchin]

What exactly was your point in asking about biblical disproofs, rhutchin?

Elixir started the conversation by stating, "...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual." I simply asked, "what beliefs?" and it took off from there.

 

[rhutchin]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

Well, the Flat Earth society that quoted scripture to make their case comes quickly to mind.

The Flat Earth society claims no belief in the Bible and freely uses Scripture and other sources it can find, regardless of context, to advance its agenda.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Flat Earth society claims no belief in the Bible and freely uses Scripture and other sources it can find, regardless of context, to advance its agenda.

They use Scripture to support their agenda, but claim no belief in the Books?
How's that work?

 

[rhutchin]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

A setup question. What biblical beliefs or what beliefs you have that you say are biblical beliefs?

The Bible doesn't understand disease. There are myriads of rules about things being unclean. But instead of explaining that they just need to cook the food properly, they have to avoid it all cost, it is simply "unclean". Women are unclean during their "intelligently design" week of the month. No explanations about what it really is or how best to stay clean... just banish them for a while. The bible doesn't understand the issues of cleanliness, disease prevention, proper cooking. It just uses vague rules of banishment in order to avoid the whole issue.

Your objection is that greater explanation is not given. So, I was wondering. How did women deal with such things before tampons? What would a women do out in the desert? Why don't you even explain the situation so that we can understand your issues here? Maybe people understand more than you are willing to credit them, so the Bible did not have to go into the detail you suggest.

- - - Updated - - -

The Flat Earth society claims no belief in the Bible and freely uses Scripture and other sources it can find, regardless of context, to advance its agenda.

They use Scripture to support their agenda, but claim no belief in the Books?
How's that work?

Not very well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They use Scripture to support their agenda, but claim no belief in the Books?
How's that work?

Not very well.

Ha.
And ha-ha. Guffaw, even.

 

[Rhea]

Whatever the source, it is the way the Books describes the cosmos, everything revolving around the Earth. .

The original source for this belief was not the Bible - it was Greek philosophy.

You seem to ignore this passage IN YOUR BIBLE

Joshua 10:13
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

The only way for the "sun to stand still" is if you consider the earth to be the center and things move around it. If it were not directly saying that the earth was the center, then it would have said, "the earth stood still" but it does not. "The sun stood still" expresses geocentrism and no other thing.

 

[Rhea]

Not minor at all, and bothers me for very particular reasons, not the least of which is how monstrous it is to say that a man with unfounded jealousy has done nothing wrong when he publicly accuses his wife and makes her take a poisonous drink that will cause her to miscarry and it's all her fault that he was jealous in the first place so it serves her right even if she is innocent.


rhutchin and EricH- do you believe this passage and worship the god who wrote it? Are either of you one of those monsters?

Within the context of the chapter, it seems to be one resolution to the problem. Do you have a better method to resolve the problem?

Is this a joking response or a real one?

Do I have a better method to deal with men who are jealous than publicly shaming the woman and trying to make her abort a pregnancy as a test for whether he's justified? And declaring if this monstrous test proves he was wrong that, "oh well he did nothing wrong to be insanely jealous for no reason?"

um, yeah. You could stone to death any man who brought a false accusation against his wife. Or, you could say, do you have any evidence? Or you could say, nothing about trying to abort her pregnancy will shed any light on her alleged infidelity. If you don't trust her, then divorce her and be done with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A setup question. What biblical beliefs or what beliefs you have that you say are biblical beliefs?

The Bible doesn't understand disease. There are myriads of rules about things being unclean. But instead of explaining that they just need to cook the food properly, they have to avoid it all cost, it is simply "unclean". Women are unclean during their "intelligently design" week of the month. No explanations about what it really is or how best to stay clean... just banish them for a while. The bible doesn't understand the issues of cleanliness, disease prevention, proper cooking. It just uses vague rules of banishment in order to avoid the whole issue.

Your objection is that greater explanation is not given.

You mean any explanation? That how their lives could have been infinitely improved by explaining how to properly cook food?

So, I was wondering. How did women deal with such things before tampons? What would a women do out in the desert? Why don't you even explain the situation so that we can understand your issues here? Maybe people understand more than you are willing to credit them, so the Bible did not have to go into the detail you suggest.

??? Obfuscation complete. I'm done wasting my time with you. You clearly don't believe what you are saying.

 

[Mageth]

They use Scripture to support their agenda, but claim no belief in the Books?
How's that work?

Not very well.

Ha.
And ha-ha. Guffaw, even.

God cannot create a square circle, but rhutchin's giving it his best shot...

 

[rhutchin]

God cannot create a square circle,...

Can you prove that God cannot create a square circle? Would you know one if you saw one?

- - - Updated - - -

So, I was wondering. How did women deal with such things before tampons? What would a women do out in the desert? Why don't you even explain the situation so that we can understand your issues here? Maybe people understand more than you are willing to credit them, so the Bible did not have to go into the detail you suggest.

??? Obfuscation complete. I'm done wasting my time with you. You clearly don't believe what you are saying.

I was pretty sure that you would not know.

 

[rhutchin]

Not minor at all, and bothers me for very particular reasons, not the least of which is how monstrous it is to say that a man with unfounded jealousy has done nothing wrong when he publicly accuses his wife and makes her take a poisonous drink that will cause her to miscarry and it's all her fault that he was jealous in the first place so it serves her right even if she is innocent.

rhutchin and EricH- do you believe this passage and worship the god who wrote it? Are either of you one of those monsters?

Within the context of the chapter, it seems to be one resolution to the problem. Do you have a better method to resolve the problem?

Is this a joking response or a real one?

Do I have a better method to deal with men who are jealous than publicly shaming the woman and trying to make her abort a pregnancy as a test for whether he's justified? And declaring if this monstrous test proves he was wrong that, "oh well he did nothing wrong to be insanely jealous for no reason?"

um, yeah. You could stone to death any man who brought a false accusation against his wife. Or, you could say, do you have any evidence? Or you could say, nothing about trying to abort her pregnancy will shed any light on her alleged infidelity. If you don't trust her, then divorce her and be done with it.

I didn't think you would have a better resolution to the problem, much less any resolution.

Divorce would have been a pretty tough sentence on the wife. That would basically leave prostitution as the only means to support herself.

 

[rhutchin]

Whatever the source, it is the way the Books describes the cosmos, everything revolving around the Earth. .

The original source for this belief was not the Bible - it was Greek philosophy.

You seem to ignore this passage IN YOUR BIBLE

Joshua 10:13
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

The only way for the "sun to stand still" is if you consider the earth to be the center and things move around it. If it were not directly saying that the earth was the center, then it would have said, "the earth stood still" but it does not. "The sun stood still" expresses geocentrism and no other thing.

I don't see why. For the sun and moon to "stand still" requires only that the earth slow its rotation . There is the physical observation that was made - "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." That was the observation of those who witnessed the event. Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God.

 

[rhutchin]

The Books portrays a geocentric world model. Which even so called 'literalists' are forced to deny.

The Books may do so, but the Bible does not.

 

[rhutchin]

...science proves you cannot have repopulated the planet after a flood).

OK. Where has science proven this?

 

[Mageth]

I don't see why. For the sun and moon to "stand still" requires only that the earth slow its rotation . There is the physical observation that was made - "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." That was the observation of those who witnessed the event.

(emphasis added)

In other words, "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" were biblical beliefs.

And science has shown those beliefs to be....COUNTERFACTUAL.

Thanks for acually providing support for the point you were so desperately and irrationally arguing against with your pretzel logic (as I say, you're giving "creating a square circle" your best shot...but all you get is a pretzel.)

Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God.

No other civilizations on earth at the time recorded this extraordinary alleged event. Which makes the recorded event, well, counterfactual. The sun-stopping story is a myth intended to establish and embellish the ability of the local God YHWH. But here you are applying circular logic by attempting to use the notion of an omnipotent God to show that the mythical actions of said God that were recorded in the Bible are possible.

"God is clearly omnipotent because he can stop the earth's rotation. We know that God can stop the earth's rotation because he's omnipotent."

Sheesh. A prime example of the bad thinking that religion leads one to.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Books portrays a geocentric world model. Which even so called 'literalists' are forced to deny.

The Books may do so, but the Bible does not.

Once upon a time, a thumper on the SAB objected to someone publishing 'the fisherman's bible,' on the basis that 'bible' refers to one and only one holy book. But it does, in fact, refer to any authoritative document. It is not reserved only for one superstition's source book. The term Bible comes from an older word for books, which comes from a term for book, which comes from a term for a stack of paper, which comes from a term for a particular type of paper, which comes from a city famous for good quality paper. So, in essence, 'bible' is about as special as naming any printed document The Boise Cascade or the Xerox.
I adopted the habit on that forum and retain it.

The Bible ,if you will, describes a geocentric universe, an inside out snow globe floating on the Waters Below, with the Waters Above kept off of Earth by a solid dome. There are windows in the dome through which rainwater from the Water Above can be passed by opening those windows.

BTW, chests of ice by the windows allow God to throw hail through, as well, according to scripture. Science has definitely shown that no part of the water cycle involves chests of ice stowed handy to windows cut into the solid sky.

Further, science has also shown the Books Bible to be wrong in the description of clouds as only being able to hold the weight of rainwater because God's power supports them. Science tells us that the clouds are made of rainwater.

 

[Rhea]

The Bible doesn't understand disease. There are myriads of rules about things being unclean. [...] Women are unclean during their "intelligently design" week of the month. No explanations about what it really is or how best to stay clean... just banish them for a while. The bible doesn't understand the issues of cleanliness, disease prevention, proper cooking. It just uses vague rules of banishment in order to avoid the whole issue.

Your objection is that greater explanation is not given. So, I was wondering. How did women deal with such things before tampons? What would a women do out in the desert?

It sounds like you are saying, "no, the bible understands these things just fine and has no disturbing misinformation is spread by it," because...??? you are looking for better ways than banishing women to keep things "clean" during their menses? and since Jimmy asked you to explain your question, you think he doesn't know any?


Since thousands of other non-hebrew civilizations dealt with this, too, I think we can see that banishment was unnecessary, especially for any society that has fabric.

 

[Mageth]

BTW, in resorting to MAGIC to support your arguments/assertions ("Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God") you are essentially waving a white flag, giving up on any rational or scientific argument you're attempting. Sure, if you invoke MAGIC, anything is possible (see LAST THURSDAYISM for a parody of religious magical thinking along these lines). With the exception of further rational discussion, of course.

 

[Rhea]

um, yeah. You could stone to death any man who brought a false accusation against his wife. Or, you could say, do you have any evidence? Or you could say, nothing about trying to abort her pregnancy will shed any light on her alleged infidelity. If you don't trust her, then divorce her and be done with it.

I didn't think you would have a better resolution to the problem, much less any resolution.

Divorce would have been a pretty tough sentence on the wife. That would basically leave prostitution as the only means to support herself.

On the contrary, a death by stoning of any man who was so paranoid jealous and untrusting of his wife as to ask the public to administer a forced abortion to see if it takes would improve things tremendously. Lots less jealousy and accusation.

And divorce being tough? Like, tougher than a forced abortion by poison followed by stoning to death if they determine she's guilty? No.

 

[Rhea]

I don't see why. For the sun and moon to "stand still" requires only that the earth slow its rotation . There is the physical observation that was made - "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." That was the observation of those who witnessed the event. Within context, the events described would not be beyond the ability of an omnipotent God.

For the "sun to stand still," you MUST BELIEVE IT IS MOVING, therefore you must believe in geocentrism.
Notwithstanding that science proves that if you take an object like earth with a surface rotation speed of over 1000 miles per hour and you STOP IT, there will be very severe and deadly effects and likewise when you START IT AGAIN there will be equally violent surface effects. And neither history nor geology records this event. So that part is disproved - i.e. determined to be a lie - also.