Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[Subduction Zone]

Well, actually, no, he didn't. Have you actually read his works?



Look, you can't seem to manage being polite, and you don't seem to have anything interesting to say, so lets just call it quits, huh?

Oh my, you have it backwards. At least I am not excessively rude.

 

[Tom 1]

It is late at night, perhaps tomorrow I can add to this for you. But he was thought to be a flat Earth believer. One would not deny the possibility of someone on the other side of the Earth if that were not the case.

The ‘I think this so it must be true’ approach isn’t helping to further your argument SZ.

 

[Tom 1]

Actually no, and this shows that you are looking at that story rather shallowly. Unless you think that it disproves the divinity of Christ.

?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ‘I think this so it must be true’ approach isn’t helping to further your argument SZ.

Please, this is projection. I am the only one that has supported his own claims here. Try again. You have nothing except "because I say so".

 

[Subduction Zone]

?

It appears that you do not think that Satan knew who Jesus was.

 

[Tom 1]

Please, this is projection. I am the only one that has supported his own claims here. Try again. You have nothing except "because I say so".

Nope, it’s what’s actually in the text. You read the text, miss what it says and make statements like ‘the argument doesn’t make sense if [the thing that I believe] isn’t true’. You are simply making statements about what you think with some vague allusions thrown in. Which of your claims is supported?

 

[d taylor]

You can make one out of Lego:

But this is more beautiful:

The moon lights up the night by reflecting sunlight. That's how it works.

That is not even close to what i was asking to see

 

[Tom 1]

It appears that you do not think that Satan knew who Jesus was.

Actually that is a legitimate question, but nothing to do with anything I said. Again, what is Jesus being tempted with, and why? You can read it in the text you quoted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, it’s what’s actually in the text. You read the text, miss what it says and make statements like ‘the argument doesn’t make sense if [the thing that I believe] isn’t true’. You are simply making statements about what you think with some vague allusions thrown in. Which of your claims is supported?

Grasping at straws again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actual that is a legitimate question, but nothing to do with anything I said. Again, what is Jesus being tempted with, and why? You can read it in the text you quoted.

It has everything to do with it. You appear to be entering a state of cognitive dissonance. That quite often happens when one's cherished beliefs are threatened.

 

[Tom 1]

It has everything to do with it. You appear to be entering a state of cognitive dissonance. That quite often happens when one's cherished beliefs are threatened.

You’re losing it dude. You’re in an argument with yourself. Which of my beliefs do you think are threatened, why do you keep dodging questions and what do you have against a 2 way discussion? Maybe you should get some sleep.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re losing it dude. You’re in an argument with yourself. Which of my beliefs do you think are threatened, why do you keep dodging questions and what do you have against a 2 way discussion? Maybe you should get some sleep.

More projection. At any rate we are entering an area that the mods frown upon. I just wonder why you have such a hard time accepting that the writers of the Old Testament at least almost certainly believed in a flat Earth. Why does that bother you?

 

[Tom 1]

Grasping at straws again.

Grasping at straws about what? What is it that you think I’m trying to prove, and why? I’m just pointing out that you aren’t making arguments, you’re just saying stuff and then making oblique references to things you either haven’t really read or you just haven’t understood. Going back to your first dodge at post #465 you could revisit your first claim and explain your view on the passages you mention, explaining what you think the meaning of each is, why you think so, how the way in which it is written confirms that, how that fits into the immediate and wider context, and so on. That would be supporting your claims. Of course you can just continue to make random statements if you prefer.

I’ll recommend some reading that could be useful:

To address the tendency of reinterpreting the past in terms of current paradigms, in other words the assumption that the things you think about or associate with certain words were the same things that people in another era took to be of importance, or that they thought about the same things but just in different ways, I’d recommend Thomas Kuhn on the nature of scientific revolutions, and also Auerbach’s Mimesis, which can help you to develop an understanding of how literature can both reflect and shape the thinking of a given era. Mimesis can also get you started on understanding how different writing styles are used to convey meaning in different ways.

More specifically there is John H Walton on the cultural context of Genesis, in ‘the lost world of genesis one’. That will give you a more complete understanding of thinking in early OT times, and also has an extensive reading list. David Rosenberg’s book on Abraham also gives some interesting insights into how ideas travel across cultures.

You might also find Lisa Feldman Barrett’s research into how cultural concepts and related emotional ‘buy-in’ are created useful.

Of course you can also read some of the original pre biblical and contemporary texts to get a better feel for the zeitgeist and cultural and intellectual preoccupations of the time.

 

[Tom 1]

More projection. At any rate we are entering an area that the mods frown upon. I just wonder why you have such a hard time accepting that the writers of the Old Testament at least almost certainly believed in a flat Earth. Why does that bother you?

It doesn’t bother me. The context provided by numerous other writings from the time shows a preoccupation with order vs chaos, roles of people, animals and God, the nature of relationships between people in community, and so on. Concerns about the nature of the physical world, it’s shape and so on, don’t appear in any form until over a millennia later than the latest dates for the writing of genesis. The genesis narrative reflects those same cosmogonic ideas. Of course you can believe whatever you like about it, but it’s unclear why you think that you have supported any of your claims.

 

[Kylie]

Well anytime you want to model that and prove the moon is lit by the sun. Let me know i would like to see your model in person.

It is simple just take a dark room take a sphere shape (to represent the moon) and a light source to represent the sun and light up the moon while keeping your room dark as seen in sciences outer space.

Oh and also do not show any light from the sun, lighting the moon, the moon should just shine in the room as if it is a light source itself.

Eleos literally said that the moon is a reflector, so why would you demand a model which does not allow the moon to be a reflector?

 

[Lost4words]

Excuses, excuses...

Says an atheist

 

[Lost4words]

Well anytime you want to model that and prove the moon is lit by the sun. Let me know i would like to see your model in person.

It is simple just take a dark room take a sphere shape (to represent the moon) and a light source to represent the sun and light up the moon while keeping your room dark as seen in sciences outer space.

Oh and also do not show any light from the sun, lighting the moon, the moon should just shine in the room as if it is a light source itself.

 

[Kylie]

Says an atheist

Eh?

 

[Ophiolite]

More projection. At any rate we are entering an area that the mods frown upon. I just wonder why you have such a hard time accepting that the writers of the Old Testament at least almost certainly believed in a flat Earth. Why does that bother you?

For what it's worth, and that may not be much, I find Tom's arguments here more convincing than yours. This is largely because his are arguments and yours seem more like assertions. It's the first occasion in reading hundreds of your posts that I've found myself at odds with your conclusions. Just something for you (and probably me) to reflect on. (Or not.)

 

[Tom 1]

For what it's worth, and that may not be much, I find Tom's arguments here more convincing than yours. This is largely because his are arguments and yours seem more like assertions. It's the first occasion in reading hundreds of your posts that I've found myself at odds with your conclusions. Just something for you (and probably me) to reflect on. (Or not.)

Reading back some of my posts where I was aiming for humourous I ended up more with blunt, so that didn't help. I think there is some laziness on my part also as I try to develop an idea over several posts rather than explaining myself a bit more fully in each.