Flat Earth and Geocentrism

[Sword of Christ]

More fiat assertions, very unhelpful

Not assertions is this factually what I know happened. You can read about what the ancient philosophers/scientists of the classical world figured out and thought up yourself if you're interested. The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler a very good book on the subject but there are a great many others. Christian and Islamic science was for the most part taken from the classical world and figures such as Aristotle. The orbits of the planets around the Earth was accounted for by a series of rotating interlocking glass like spheres and the maths they developed for this system worked very well. Unfortunately they did have it completely wrong but the mistake was one of science. It's not the case that science came along and fixed incorrect religious beliefs it just corrected it's own view of the universe. No doubt there are things science has wrong today, particularly if you consider what people say 1000 years from now will know that we don't. They may find our current view of the cosmos just as laughable in some way.

, especially in light of all the bible verses that imply a flat earth.

If you're going back to the bronze age the Jews will have shared the same view of the world as the Egyptians and other peoples of the near East of the time. The world was flat, rested on pillars and had a glass like firmament or dome above it but they had no way to know any better. By the Christian era they had figured out the size, shapes, distance and movement of things. There were heliocentric models of the solar system but this was a fringe hypothesis and there was no real way to demonstrate it without the aid of a telescope. It's also worth bearing in mind that Galileo was a devout Catholic when he demonstrated the heliocentric solar system through his telescopic investigation. So this isn't a "science vs religion" kind of thing where science won. That's the way atheists like to portray it but it isn't how it happened at all. Religion did not hold science back. The European dark ages were brought about through the collapse of classical civilization not Christianity. Christianity if anything helped to preserve literacy within it's monastic communities.

Not to mention the fact that, despite your claims that christians knew the earth was spherical "from the very beginning,"

They had figured out the shape of the Earth as early as the 4th century BC this was common knowledge by the time of Jesus.

historically you get a lot of saints and biblical scholars arguing about the nature of the firmament- you know, that giant dome that Genesis describes as dividing the water in space from the water below? Thomas Aquinas argued for a solid firmament, over which there is fire.

Thomas Aquinas saw the firmament as being some kind of wall of ice out in space beyond the orbiting spheres of planets or whatever. As a rule people didn't believe that the Earth was flat and resting on pillars at this point they had calculated the shape and dimensions of it and realised that it was a sphere floating in space.

Remember that verse in Matthew where Jesus could see the entire planet from the top of a tall mountain?

He could could have had a vision of the planet from the top of a small mountain? It's not like he telescope up there.

[Tonus]

Do you think that the Bible is the best work he could come up with?

If it were who would it speak to?

The bible is the remedial course in God/salvation 101

And still we have trouble with it.

We have trouble with it because it's so poorly written, particularly in the way it allows for so many different interpretations. At the very least I would expect it to be clear enough for anyone to understand regardless of language or intellect. We're talking about a creature of such advanced knowledge and intelligence that we can't even fathom how smart he is, yet he allowed his guidebook --the most important document humanity could possibly be given-- to be a horribly sloppy mess.

The Bible isn't remedial god/salvation 101. It's barely even remedial reading/writing.

---

It's also worth bearing in mind that Galileo was a devout Catholic when he demonstrated the heliocentric solar system through his telescopic investigation. So this isn't a "science vs religion" kind of thing where science won. That's the way atheists like to portray it but it isn't how it happened at all. Religion did not hold science back.

Errr... what????

[LostLocke]

The issue I tend to run into with these discussions is that...

Verses like the foundations of the earth, the pillars of the earth, the earth doesn't move = poetic literature.

God hangs the earth upon nothing = evidence of scientific knowledge the earth was floating in space.

Which is it?

[Sword of Christ]

Errr... what????[/url]

The issue was regarding questioning the religious authority of the Pope at a time when the Protestant reformation was underway. Galileo was still a devoutly Catholic and not in any sense an atheist. Most of the great scientists up until the 20th century were all theists including Issac Newton.

[Angrboda]

Do you think if God had the bible written from His perspective we'd be able to understand it?

When teaching or explaining to a large group (let alone all of humanity) one must teach to the 'slowest' person in the group. Otherwise you'd loose all but a hand ful. This way only a handful is lost.

Except that this doesn't work, because writing it for their comprehension means you lose a lot more students in the current time period, perhaps all. The population then was much less than it is now, and since Christianity is based on belief, then endangering the belief of present day Christians is more dangerous than endangering the belief of less skeptical earlier men. And an omniscient god would know this. If this god is interested in our salvation, he would aim for scientific accuracy rather than simplicity, as the early believers wouldn't be as likely to judge negatively based on the presence of scientific accuracy. Current believers will judge negatively for the lack of scientific accuracy. The early believers were less critical, and there were fewer of them. Logic says you aim to please the last rather than the first.

See how easy it is to spin an ad hoc explanation? I don't even know if it's a better ad hoc explanation than yours. What I do know is you are responding with ad hoc explanations, basically "making it up as you go along." And that's no way to proceed if you want to arrive at the truth, as there will always be such ad hoc explanations. They don't test the original question; only your ability to make shit up. The original question remains unproved. But thanks for so clearly demonstrating the hollowness of your apologetic.

[Minimalist]

Do you think if God had the bible written from His perspective we'd be able to understand it?

We? Yes. You? Not a chance.

---

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
(Robert Cardinal Bellarmine / 1542-1621 / at the trial of Galileo in 1615)

[Esquilax]

Except that this doesn't work, because writing it for their comprehension means you lose a lot more students in the current time period, perhaps all. The population then was much less than it is now, and since Christianity is based on belief, then endangering the belief of present day Christians is more dangerous than endangering the belief of less skeptical earlier men. And an omniscient god would know this. If this god is interested in our salvation, he would aim for scientific accuracy rather than simplicity, as the early believers wouldn't be as likely to judge negatively based on lack of scientific accuracy. Current believers will.

This is a really excellent point, but it also raises another one: what's to stop an omnipotent god who has a message for all mankind to write two bibles, one that fits the limited knowledge of the people in the past, and another with a little message at the beginning that just says "trust me, to your descendant's descendants, this stuff will make a lot more sense..." and fill that book with stuff applicable to the present and beyond?

How much more credibility would that bible have, over the cheapo one we have now?

[Minimalist]

Ah but Esq., you simply do not undertand "faith." Let the great shithead, Martin Luther, explain it for himself.

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther

At the end of the day, religion likes them stupid and wants them to stay stupid.

[Angrboda]

This is a really excellent point, but it also raises another one: what's to stop an omnipotent god who has a message for all mankind to write two bibles, one that fits the limited knowledge of the people in the past, and another with a little message at the beginning that just says "trust me, to your descendant's descendants, this stuff will make a lot more sense..." and fill that book with stuff applicable to the present and beyond?

How much more credibility would that bible have, over the cheapo one we have now?

Or how about a bible that changes according to the needs of the time. Funny how this omnipotent god was limited to the authorial techniques of the time. It's almost as if men wrote the bible, and not God.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So what you're saying is that the concept of a sphere would be baffling to those bronze age peeps, but the concept of an all knowing, miraculous god would not be?

The concept of a sphere before the ability to explain it would have baffled anyone.

Yes, never mind the Greeks.