The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers

Wrong again.  He was looking for an alternate route to India, be it for trade or for war.  Regardless, his aim had nothing to do with proving the world to be round or flat.  If people truly widely believed the Earth was flat at the time, why, do you propose, did his crew not all jump ship?

The flat earth model proposed by the FES here can be circumnavigated the same as the round earth model anyway, so your argument is completely moot.

Again I urge that you do some study and research before you try to make an argument.

sorry, i knew he was trying to go to india, i just forgot to say it, he wasnt too afraid of falling off the face of the earth, if he was , he would never have gone on the expidition.

sorry, i knew he was trying to go to india, i just forgot to say it, he wasnt too afraid of falling off the face of the earth, if he was , he would never have gone on the expidition.

Yeah, so, all that crap you said about Columbus on the previous page is wrong and misleading.

Quote from: "FeeFee"

sorry, i knew he was trying to go to india, i just forgot to say it, he wasnt too afraid of falling off the face of the earth, if he was , he would never have gone on the expidition.

Yeah, so, all that crap you said about Columbus on the previous page is wrong and misleading.

Erasmus, please dont flame other members.

You're one to talk.

Let every man be a liar and God be true!

God exists.  *poof!*

You're one to talk.

XD

Erasmus, please dont flame other members.

Very funny... but I was "flaming" his claims, not his person.

Quote from: "dantheman40k"

Erasmus, please dont flame other members.

Very funny... but I was "flaming" his claims, not his person.

Where does one purchase a flamethrower?  Do tell.

While I did not read the entire thread. ( :oops: ) I do wish to say something...

Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally.
Was adam and eve created twice? Then why don't we have clones running around? There are TWO stories of creation in Genesis.

Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally.

How do we know what is to be taken literally and what isn't?  Is that just up to our judgement?  I don't think any of it is true, although some parts are obviously very loosely based on true events.

Quote from: "EGOOT247"

Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally.

How do we know what is to be taken literally and what isn't?  Is that just up to our judgement?  I don't think any of it is true, although some parts are obviously very loosely based on true events.

The bible is not concerned with Scientific Truth. The writers really didn't care how the earth was made so much as that GOD MADE IT.
Historical accuracy isn't perfect either, but they wanted to portray the Salvation truth. Most of the "historical" stories were written to prove that God Saves His People. I guess we could call that a "big theme?"

In my mind, it doesn't matter whether or not the stories are factual events. For me, they contain moral truth and understanding. And religious truth (doctorine) but the religious truth has to do with religion, and on a scientific debate, it isn't a good idea to refer to religion.

I guess it is up to your judgement. If you're atheist, that is that.
If catholic, as am I, you can refer to the Catechism.
I don't know how others differenciate. But I go by the pope. While the pope is human and not infallible, on religious matters he is protected from error. On doctrine, he's right. (The above is all IMO. I think I stated that well enough by the fact that "I go by ..." )

So you actually believe it is ok to go around Africa telling people that using condoms won't stop the spread of aids, but will in fact, make the disease spread faster - despite the direct scientific evidence that contradicts this statement?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

So you actually believe it is ok to go around Africa telling people that using condoms won't stop the spread of aids, but will in fact, make the disease spread faster - despite the direct scientific evidence that contradicts this statement?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

While I don't believe in the use of condoms, I think you should READ the article you posted.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms

Is that the pope? No. Not really. If it were, they would have said--It would give it more backing. But it isn't. And if it was, i would have heard about this before.

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

That, I believe. And notice that they use the NAME of Pope JPII. They don't say "a senior." If it was the pope who said what you claim, it would have said so.

"Relying on condoms is like betting on your own death" - Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo - Vatican spokesperson on family affairs - 2003.

Please refrain from debating in the information repository.

OK. I'm sorry. We'll move it to Personal Messages?
PM Sent. Alfonso is not the pope.

ANY of the other forums would be fine. You don't have to PM if you don't want.

Please refrain from debating in the information repository.

Of course, lest the Thought Police Moderators wiill delete the thread!!!! :shock:  :shock:  :shock:

No, we will just delete your posts.

No, we will just delete your posts.

Do deleted posts still count towards one post count?

(Post #666)

No.