Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with

On Fri, 25 May 2007 03:35:10 GMT, George Evans wrote:

in article 19mzv9v2f0hzo.homejl952e30.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, Shane at
remarcsdNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/20/07 10:56 PM:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 05:23:54 GMT, George Evans wrote:

in article piiz27wj14im.1xm6tngq3g9mz.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, Shane at
remarcsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/19/07 3:37 PM:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:30:34 GMT, George Evans wrote:

<snip>

I knew you guys would go to idioms.

Gee, I wonder where the idiom came from, and why? But that aside, Matthew's
references does not include an idiom. So that one reference alone is enough
to
kill your assertion stone dead. Daniel uses an idiom, but dispense with the
idiom and it says the tree was visible to the whole earth, which is
impossible.

You wrote 43 lines and I waited to respond until you were done.

Wow, not only and unmarked snip, but you went to all the trouble to join
the paragraph back up again, all without any indication of your actions.
That is way past *bad form*, and is actually borderline dishonest. And
you are complaining about layout. issues you don't like.

I then
responded to various points you made. Sometimes I am so bold as to interrupt
between paragraphs, but I try to avoid breaking up a person paragraph unless
it is composed of a series of questions.

You seem to have purposely chopped up two paragraphs of mine into tiny
pieces in order to confuse the readers. Bad form.

Appearances can be deceptive, can't they? Some people respond to the
relevant piece at the time. This is not a formal debate, if you
consider it is, that is similarly 'bad form'.

We spend so much time writing these argument, I would think that, formal or
not, one of the goals would be to make the argument as understandable as
possible to the reader.

But it is to acheive exactly what you suggest that arguments are broken
up to individual points so that a reader does not necessarily have to
remember multiple arguments when they finally arrive at the responses.

Now, the idioms I referred to are found in you last paragraph, which is the
only one that contains much substance. The idioms "ends of the earth" and
"corners of the earth" are used by people who believe the earth is spherical
to denote completeness.

They are also used by people who consider the earth to be flat to denote
exactly what the words imply. Very 'bad form' of you to ignore those people.

So I am glad to see you have come back to a neutral position,

What is neutral about it? My position was, and remains, that the words
were used because that is what the writers believed.

as opposed to
how you started, "All the verses that refer to the ends of the earth and the
corners of the earth do not, and cannot, reference a spherical earth..." I
can live with that.

So can I, and I'm so glad you agree, finally.

Matthews reference to Satan taking Jesus to a high mountain clearly occurs in
a dream like experience

Does it. Not as far as the church I belong to it doesn't. But maybe I am
wrong, and you can provide some support for believing this is a vision, or
similar?

Apparently not, so can I take it that this is just another position of
yours that may be straight out of Grimms fairy tales, as it has no
theological or academic basis as far as you know?

and can't be taken literally in any sense. There is no mountain that you can
see "all the kingdoms of the earth" from.

There is if the world is flat.

No you can't. Looking down from 150 miles in space there are few signs of
habitation.

Where did the *habitation* requirement come from? The quote says
kingdoms of the earth.

Cities look like gray blotches. Realistically you couldn't
detect "kingdoms" more than 50 miles away. That would have to be a very
small flat disk.

You can clearly see kingdoms in photo's of the earth taken from space.
So it can be a very large flat disk, 24,000 miles in circumference for
example.

<snip>

I didn't think you guys would stoop so low as to use idioms within visions

I didn't think you would stoop so low as to move the goal posts: If the
idioms and visions of a flat earth are mentioned in the bible, then a flat
earth is mentioned in the bible.

Sorry to be a downer, but neither of the texts you used mentions a flat
earth. *You* mentioned a flat earth. *You* said the earth had to be flat in
order for these visions to make sense.

Correctomondo, I merely articulated the implication of the words. As for the
bible not saying certain things flat out, well so what? The majority of
characters mentioned in the bible are not referenced as being born, eating,
sleeping, eliminating etc. Is it your contention that none of them did so
unless it is explicitly stated, or is it implied, in their being human?

You didn't articulate *the* implications of the words. You articulated your
attempt to endow a figurative passage with physical implications.

Nope the words imply a flat earth, it is the only way they can make
sense.

But since when does a vision, which is basically a dream, have to make sense.

It doesn't. So what is your point.

You should try and force it to.

I should try and force your point to what??

In Daniel's dream the surface of the earth could have been peeled off and
turned inside out for all we know. I know that's ridiculous hyperbole, but I
want to emphasize the point that dreams don't have to follow reality.

So what?

Don't try to force them to follow reality, or rather describe reality.

I agree. they have nothing to do with reality, but that was the whole
point of my listing them. Reality is a spherical earth, and these verses
do not reference that at all. they do reference a flat earth, and, as
you suggest, that is not describing reality.

though. Daniel described a lion with wings in one vision. In fact the
Babylonians also make statuary of lions with wings. Do you think Daniel,
and the Babylonians believed lions could fly?

Wow! a goal post shift. Your assertion, now shown to be false, was; "There
is nothing in the bible about a flat earth." Now you are suggesting that yes
there is mention of a flat earth in the bible by idiom and fantastic
visions.

No there isn't mention of a flat earth in either of the text you put forward.
You inferred that the word pictures *imply* a flat earth, but they are dream
type experiences.

According to you, but in the Matthew reference you have provided no reason to
believe that is the case.

The temptations are all *in the wilderness*. Are we to understand that a
real mountain was found where normal human eyes could resolve Rome, Egypt,
Persia, India, and China at the same time, even if the earth was flat.

Er, the earth wasn't flat, that's the whole point, yet the writers wrote
as if it was. Oh and whose *normal human* eyes?

It appears you now accept that your assertion is wrong, why not just admit
it without all this *** footing around?

No, you should now accept that your assertion was wrong.

Based on what evidence? the zero you have provided? No, I think I will stick
with the plain words of the bible.

That would be a good start.

And finish. The conclusion is thus inescapable, you claimed that; "There
is nothing in the bible about a flat earth." yet at the very least you
now claim there are idioms contained in the bible that say it, So even
from that perspective your claim is refuted, and by your own position.
So it seems you did not even start with the plain words of the bible,
but just some made up claim that suited your beliefs.

.