Why I take the Bible literally

Faithfulservant said:
Why do you assume that's it's fear . Just seems chaotic that we are spinning 67000 mph around a sun that shoots fire balls at us meteors and asteroids catastrophically close to ending life as we know it.. space debris .. aliens invading..an ever expanding universe stars exploding millions of years ago that we don't know about because the speed of light isn't fast enough.. black holes.. life on other planets. I have comfort that my God is a God of order not chaos.
Click to expand...
Not at all chaotic -- just big. Old. Powerful. Fast. And systematic as all get out. Big enough and systematic enough to enhance one's notion of a creator whose ability to create internal laws that vast, vast material objects follow relentlessly and predictably -- to enhance the notion of such as creator as rex tremenda majestatis (king of tremendous majesty) in the way that a small flat world in an enclosure simply doesn't do...

As others have mentioned, the notions of aliens invading or doing anything at all, frankly, remains speculation. If other sentient creations of God are out there trying to interact with us, one way or another, we have yet to have encounters with them that are unambiguous enough for everyone to be sure of.

The ever expanding universe is a theory because it fits the evidence they have, measurements of movements of the bodies in motion, and their relative speed, etc... But efforts to refine and improve our understanding are ongoing, and many specifics remain unproven as yet. Much evidence remains undiscovered. The cosmos are unimaginably vast, and incredibly amazing.
 
juantoo3 said:
What...exactly...per science...is a "woman?"

I'll take the allegories in the Bible any day over the fallacies and errors being forced as pseudo-reality, "fact checked" by those with a political agenda, any day of the week that ends in "y." News flash from the world of science - Men Cannot Have Babies.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand the question of "what is a woman" and whether it is a scientific question as such.
Scientific studies have been able to uncover and understand the natural processes of reproduction.
The questions of the mechanics of fertility is surely scientific and has studies going on around it all the time.
Society and language have used the word "woman" long before scientific studies into the mechanics of reproduction ever got involved.

Woman used to refer very simply to adults with female reproductive capacities.

What has come to be understood about transgender individuals (because I'm sure that's what you are referring to) is that for some reason, not well understood, some individuals have a terrible time reconciling their mind to the realities of their bodies.
I used to think they were on the brink of discovering that yes, in some cases, male brains form in female bodies and vice versa. That's what I thought was implied.

Anyway, the push to let people who --theoretically-- had a woman's brain, call herself a woman so she could live the life of a woman and live in the society the way her female brain wanted her to live -- despite the realities of the masculine body -- that push was to help people like this who were miserable and suicidal.
At least, that's what i thought it was.

I think what has happened is that the political battle to save these people's lives, has taken on a life of its own, leading to a real departure from systematic assessments and sufficient investment in research that answers the "why" question.
Departure from a systematic approach is a departure from science.

I sympathize with transgender people and feel supportive of them, having worked with them and feel I sort-of understand them and what they go through.

The direction the political side of it has taken -- I understand the how and why, but it's gone to a place that makes my head spin.

Maybe I would understand that all better if i had really delved into every bit of research there ever was about it-- I would know more, could say more, could tease out the arguments and the rights and wrongs of it.
But it wasn't really my area of interest -- I landed in it by happenstance.
 
Faithfulservant said:
All science is theory. It's based on hypothesis. I've never seen space with my own two eyes.. I've only seen pictures or TV. I've learned to not trust what I'm being told. I trust God Almighty alone. If I'm wrong I'll find out when I die. Until then I'm not hurting one single person by believing this.
Click to expand...
Well, but you've looked up at the night sky...

I'm sure nobody thinks you're hurting anything by believing this. So long as you're not spearheading a campaign to change the way science is taught in schools or anything. As far as I see it, we are all adults having a really interesting conversation.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Well, but you've looked up at the night sky...

I'm sure nobody thinks you're hurting anything by believing this. So long as you're not spearheading a campaign to change the way science is taught in schools or anything. As far as I see it, we are all adults having a really interesting conversation.
Click to expand...
There is an explanation for what we see when we look up at the night sky. But I'm not interested in proving my theory to anyone . Just like I'm not interested in others trying to prove to me the alternative.

I just think it's interesting how many people on this thread hyper focused on that one minute detail of my being a literalist and are trying so hard to talk me out of it. The tactics used are trying to reason with me to belittling me and I can bet that not one of you have researched why I could possibly believe this. So Im not really engaged in it anymore because it feels disrespectful to me. I'm not a stupid person . I didn't go into this blindly. It was a very traumatic experience breaking down years of conditioning. I have peace with it now and it's a peace God gave me.

It's not an interesting conversation to me anymore as I feel talked down to and patronized. I hope you can understand how that feels.
 
Faithfulservant said:
as I feel talked down to and patronized. I hope you can understand how that feels.
Click to expand...
Yup... ya better believe it. If I had to write a script about the long sad irritating history of people being condescending to me in my life I would not know where to begin. I could write a loooonng running series on that topic alone, even with only a glimmer of people's motives to flesh out the script.

I think as women just being in the world, we almost can't escape an overly generous amount of being talked down to, in both social and work settings, esp when we are young.

However, nobody is immune. I think most people men and women can relate to some extent to being patronized. And it irritates most people.

Also however, I really thought as a group we did a good job of the ethos of "attacking ideas not people" but it doesn't seem it felt that way to you.
:confused:

But ideas are always open to attack. Or at least challenge. After all, by asserting belief in a flat earth, you are attacking or at least challenging the idea (regarded by many as a well understood established fact) of the globe turning and rotating around the sun. You said it seemed chaotic. In a way that's its own attack on the fundamental idea of the orderly solar system. (which therefore, in turn, undermines many well thought arguments about intelligent design...)

People here critiqued your theory and probed your reasoning as the theory you subscribe to is not well supported by evidence. It's not patronizing to state that fact. If you have further evidence you can advance it. That is the very nature of the scientific community (and actually the entire academic community) They hound the hell out of each other's ideas. They are monumentally competitive and always trying to get the jump on one another to advance their own ideas and prove themselves right.

Ideally they stick to attacking ideas not people -- but in practice-- maybe not always? They remind one another routinely.
But they are razor sharp in their analytical ability and hyper competitive. That's why I find it implausible that the entire scientific community has been cooperating on perpetrating a hoax for lo these many decades. Because that's just not how scientists relate to one another. They are at each other and each other's ideas ALL THE DAMN TIME. They are HARD on each other and demand each other to prove EVERYTHING. EVERY claim.

Ideas become regarded as settled fact when they have overwhelming evidence supporting them, and competing ideas cannot provide enough evidence to persuade anymore.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm puzzled and saddened that the discussion has you upset about how it was handled by anyone.
I'm with Sabine in the video -- I agree with her that the flat earthers are wrong, but not stupid.

It's very difficult to know how to handle a discussion like this well if any of my remarks in this post are something you find upsetting.:confused:
 
Last edited:
TheLightWithin said:
I'm not sure I understand the question of "what is a woman" and whether it is a scientific question as such.
Scientific studies have been able to uncover and understand the natural processes of reproduction.
The questions of the mechanics of fertility is surely scientific and has studies going on around it all the time.
Society and language have used the word "woman" long before scientific studies into the mechanics of reproduction ever got involved.

Woman used to refer very simply to adults with female reproductive capacities.

What has come to be understood about transgender individuals (because I'm sure that's what you are referring to) is that for some reason, not well understood, some individuals have a terrible time reconciling their mind to the realities of their bodies.
I used to think they were on the brink of discovering that yes, in some cases, male brains form in female bodies and vice versa. That's what I thought was implied.

Anyway, the push to let people who --theoretically-- had a woman's brain, call herself a woman so she could live the life of a woman and live in the society the way her female brain wanted her to live -- despite the realities of the masculine body -- that push was to help people like this who were miserable and suicidal.
At least, that's what i thought it was.

I think what has happened is that the political battle to save these people's lives, has taken on a life of its own, leading to a real departure from systematic assessments and sufficient investment in research that answers the "why" question.
Departure from a systematic approach is a departure from science.

I sympathize with transgender people and feel supportive of them, having worked with them and feel I sort-of understand them and what they go through.

The direction the political side of it has taken -- I understand the how and why, but it's gone to a place that makes my head spin.

Maybe I would understand that all better if i had really delved into every bit of research there ever was about it-- I would know more, could say more, could tease out the arguments and the rights and wrongs of it.
But it wasn't really my area of interest -- I landed in it by happenstance.
Click to expand...
I find it exceptionally hypocritical...as Wil was doing...to chastise for "scientific" reasons when he himself cannot follow the science.

I recognize your empathy, but I also see a great deal of - for lack of a better term - grooming, or perhaps proselyting, even promoting, among persons who otherwise the very idea would never enter their minds, let alone vocabulary.

This grooming is deliberate, and it is one more aspect to the unconventional and asymmetrical warfare being conducted to destroy the American social fabric.

Field an army of sissies and see how well that works for you...especially when they can't even get dirt under their fingernails without flipping out.

Hard to "man up" if you don't have any men.
 
TheLightWithin said:
It's very difficult to know how to handle a discussion like this well if any of my remarks in this post are something you find upsetting
Click to expand...
IMO anyone who starts an internet flat-earth discussion can expect some push back and the responses on this thread have been quite considerate and empathetic, compared to the aggressive and sarcastic posting that could be expected from some other forums around.

I think it says a lot about IO ;)
 
Very true
RJM said:
IMO anyone who starts an internet flat-earth discussion can expect some push back and the responses on this thread have been quite considerate and empathetic, compared to the aggressive and sarcastic posting that could be expected from some other forums around.

I think it says a lot about IO ;)
Click to expand...
Very true
 
juantoo3 said:
I recognize your empathy, but I also see a great deal of - for lack of a better term - grooming, or perhaps proselyting, even promoting, among persons who otherwise the very idea would never enter their minds, let alone vocabulary.

This grooming is deliberate, and it is one more aspect to the unconventional and asymmetrical warfare being conducted to destroy the American social fabric.
Click to expand...
People talk about that a lot. I have no direct evidence of it.
I worked almost exclusively with adults, and when I did work with a few teens their parents were often not supportive of transition.
Was true for some of the college age students as well.
By and large I'm happier not even trying to do those assessments anymore. It wasn't a specialty I would have chosen, and the lack of training of any kind, much less objective measures assessments, was outrageous.
But the idea that children are being groomed towards transitioning -- can't help you there. Murphy's Law states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong somewhere, but whether that particular wrong thing is happening on any kind of routine basis-- can't say.
 
Faithfulservant said:
Chaos

www.popularmechanics.com

Earth Has Tilted 31.5 Inches. That Shouldn't Happen.

Can we fix it back?
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
Click to expand...
Chaos theory: The study of unpredictability in complex systems

Now, if it were REALLY chaotic in the colloquial way we mean chaos, the solar system wouldn't be relied on to stay together. The orbits would not be predictable, The number of planets would vary wildly. Or planets would appear and reappear. Or the sun would change color all the time (which would stop supporting life et etc) Luckily enough, the system is more orderly than that
(Maybe not so much pure luck, but as theistic rationalists would be inclined to say, by the purposeful design of complex physical laws by a rational mind)
 
Faithfulservant said:
Chaos

www.popularmechanics.com

Earth Has Tilted 31.5 Inches. That Shouldn't Happen.

Can we fix it back?
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
Click to expand...
That ain't nuthin'...

www.space.com

Neptune's Strange Magnetic Field Stretches Arms in New Model (Video)

A new model describes Neptune's "badly behaved" magnetic field, showing how its tilt and interactions with the solar wind lead to a lopsided magnetosphere. The model could lend insight into magnetic storms on Earth.
www.space.com www.space.com

Neptune's poles are at a distinct diagonal closer to the equator

As for the 31.5 inch tilt...anyone who has played with gyroscopes knows that is normal, and does not need "fixing." Shame on the science magazine for the hyperbole.
 
juantoo3 said:
It is not for us to question G!d's intent, or plans if you will. But to better understand what makes Him tick, I think He actually enjoys letting a genuine seeker sneak a peek behind the curtain from time to time.

In other words, it is not my place to tell G!d He is wrong, that things should be different. It is acceptable to try to understand why things are the way they are.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something, but then realized that this was in the Christianity subforum and my comment being illustratred by one of the most well known Talmudic midrashim might be out of place.
 
RabbiO said:
I was going to say something, but then realized that this was in the Christianity subforum and my comment being illustratred by one of the most well known Talmudic midrashim might be out of place.
Click to expand...
Please do. I would be very interested to read your opinion of the matter, because I'm winging it here.
 
RabbiO said:
I was going to say something, but then realized that this was in the Christianity subforum and my comment being illustratred by one of the most well known Talmudic midrashim might be out of place.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a good idea to post!
 
I couldn't agree more. There a lot of double standards between modern scientific claims and believers in God.

God says in his book vs. science has proven. Irrefutable.

Studies have shown...

God knows best vs. scientists know best.

A lot of hypocrisy.

I do not believe in the spherical earth or dinosaurs, aliens, time travel other dimensions and many other modern absurdities.

I wholeheartedly believe that the earth is flat and is 12,000 years old (six days of creation (a day with God is but a thousand years of what you reckon according to St. Peter in one of his epistles).

I'm aware that this is something hard for most people to understand but we have been lied to since the day we are born at home, in school on tv etc.

We don't even get a chance to know what rational thinking is before we are already brainwashed into all of the ridiculous modern beliefs that scientists lie about and have us taught before we are even old enough to think of any alternative theories.

Check out my post elsewhere:


Why is it that the planetoi (wandering stars or as we say now, the 8 planets) lighter and hotter from further away but darker and colder from much closer up?

Why do does it immediately turn dark when spaceships leave the o-zone layer with the sun facing right in front of them (they leave the earth in daylight but it immediately turns dark as they leave (no more sun rays), then when they look at the earth, there is no sign of an ozone layer, just normal day light.

Not to mention, if it was just gathered light particles under the ozone layer, than why does it get cooler and darker when under shade?

Why do they do this, because it makes people feel like they are pointless and there is no higher purpose, makes us feel too insignificant if we can believe such ridiculous things as earth (the ground) being a millions of years old and there being just about endless space as you go high up in the sky thus making people much easier for those in power to control and use for their own objectives.

Since I know there is a lot of propaganda out there, I'm trying to be discreet in what I'm saying so I don't get typecast or ridiculed but I believe in a huge conspiracy in the highest levels of academia to teach fake science while they hide the real science for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top