What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

the geocentric bible

Yesterday's junk mail included a brochure from the Geocentric Bible Foundation and, to lighten the load on the current gay marriage discussion, I offer you:

http://www.geocentricity.com

The Day the Earth Stood Still is every day.
 
(man staring downward at the ground says) "The sky is pink"

(second man says) "take a look at it..you will clearly see its blue"

"no..I dont have to look, because the bible says the sky is pink, and thats good enough for me"

"but its NOT pink! just look up and SEE with your OWN eyes that the sky is blue!"

(still staring down at the ground) "no, you are wrong..you are misled..the bible says the sky is pink, there is NO evidence the sky is blue..you are wrong, the bible is right..the sky is pink.."

(second man walks away shaking his head in amazement..)
 
:-)) He he he he he he he ha ha ha ha ha :-)) :-)) I believe in God and all, but I am sorry Man still wrote the bible. What about the Gospal of Judah or the Gospal of Mary? They were not good enough for the bible so a preist left them out since he didn't like what they had to say.
 
Here's the gist of their point of view (lifted from http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/whygeo.html):

To hear tell, geocentrism, the ancient doctrine that the earth is fixed motionless at the center of the universe, died over four centuries ago. At that time Nicolaus Copernicus (picture below), a Polish canon who dabbled in astrology, claimed that the sun and not the earth was at the center of the universe. His idea is known as heliocentrism. It took a hundred years for heliocentrism to become the dominant opinion, and it did so with a complete lack of evidence in its favor.

Yet the victory of heliocentrism has been less than total. Over the years geocentrism has had its spokesmen. Among scientists who adhered to the centrality of the earth were three generations of Cassinis: a family of astronomers who dominated French astronomy from the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries. Astronomers, pastors, and educators in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church maintained the geocentric truths well into the twentieth century. They, with the reformers such as Luther, saw that the embracing of heliocentrism would weaken not only science, but also the authority of the Bible.

The second of these two concerns: how the Bible's authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to "up" and "down;" through the question of just what the earth was "orbiting" the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


I thought biblical literalists accept that a lot of the bible is figurative. I haven't read the whole site, but I won't be surprised if they've decided that Hemingway was an avid supporter of their geocentrism. Otherwise, why would he have written The Sun Also Rises? Assuming they've heard of Hemingway.
 
It's hard to comprehend how someone can seriously believe these things and not require some sort of psychotropic medication.
 
This is a good one... There's a whole pantheon of geocentrists and a lot of them make their argument without the Bible at all. I'm also a fan of the people that think that pi is a rational number. (It's just three; you don't need all those fancy decimal places - your math teacher was just messing with you.)
~Joe
 
:-)) He he he he he he he ha ha ha ha ha :-)) :-)) I believe in God and all, but I am sorry Man still wrote the bible. What about the Gospal of Judah or the Gospal of Mary? They were not good enough for the bible so a preist left them out since he didn't like what they had to say.

Lot to learn ye have. Man may have written the Bible but it was through the working of God through those men that the Bible was written. You also need to brush up on your Bible history because a single solitary priest did not decide what was the New Testament was to encompass. The most likely reason that the two gospels you mentioned weren't included was probably because they repeat the same information that's in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
 
No, a bunch of guys got together a few times a few hundred years AD and decided what they wanted in the bible and what they didn't. Christianity's central beliefs were negotiated for the Nicene Creed. You can say the participants were guided by God and I'll say they were also guided by personal biases, power considerations and so on. Just like the cardinals of the Roman Catholic church when they select a new pope.
 
  • #10
Lot to learn ye have. Man may have written the Bible but it was through the working of God through those men that the Bible was written. You also need to brush up on your Bible history because a single solitary priest did not decide what was the New Testament was to encompass. The most likely reason that the two gospels you mentioned weren't included was probably because they repeat the same information that's in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

No I believe the gospel of Mary Magdolin shed light on to the fact that Jesus was married. Also The gospal of Judah contidicted some of what the others said too. And your also telling me that the research done by the National geographic society and shown on the documentary was wrong? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all say basicly the same thing anyhow. Maybe not word for word, but alot of the same things.

So my thinking is like this. The Church in its struggle to keep power it tries to consolidate the gosals to get all the "followers" reading the same thing. Then they omit the stuff they don't like and make Jesus born of imaculate conception and the rest is history.

If you don't think people would do anything to remain in power when they had almost absolute power for a while your fooling yourself.

Also you take my joking comment literal. It may not have been one priest, but was not going to go into a bunch of detail. I was not trying to be literal. The Church and when I say that I am speaking of the Catholic Church that used to be all powerful in the land wishes to resume that power. Jesus did not intend for the religion of to day to be here. It is not holding to its true meaning I do not belive. Jesus was a great man in my opinion, but I do not believe he was born of imaculate conception. I also believe that The Church would do anything to get back the power it once had.
 
  • #11
Lot to learn ye have. Man may have written the Bible but it was through the working of God through those men that the Bible was written. You also need to brush up on your Bible history because a single solitary priest did not decide what was the New Testament was to encompass. The most likely reason that the two gospels you mentioned weren't included was probably because they repeat the same information that's in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

The bible was written by over 70 something men if I recall correctly. It was also written over a time period of almost 1000 years. If God spoke through all those men, what about now? Why couldn't God speak through someone in the present with enough conviction to have his word added to the bible? If someone told us they wrote a book to add to the bible that God helped him create, we would call him crazy (Catholics included).
 
  • #12
*redneck voice* Because it ain't in the Bible!
 
  • #13
You live in GA, you know as well as I do it's pronounced "baaaibul" :jester:
 
  • #14
Look right here now at what I done found.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1VMnFYQ_35Y

Lol. The day I went to Berry for orientation, the dude that wrote that song (Ben Folds) was going to perform a concert and they were selling tickets in advance. I'm hoping, if that's the kind of artist they invite, that the college isn't too conservative.
 
  • #15
No I believe the gospel of Mary Magdolin shed light on to the fact that Jesus was married. Also The gospal of Judah contidicted some of what the others said too. And your also telling me that the research done by the National geographic society and shown on the documentary was wrong? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all say basicly the same thing anyhow. Maybe not word for word, but alot of the same things.

So my thinking is like this. The Church in its struggle to keep power it tries to consolidate the gosals to get all the "followers" reading the same thing. Then they omit the stuff they don't like and make Jesus born of imaculate conception and the rest is history.

If you don't think people would do anything to remain in power when they had almost absolute power for a while your fooling yourself.

Also you take my joking comment literal. It may not have been one priest, but was not going to go into a bunch of detail. I was not trying to be literal. The Church and when I say that I am speaking of the Catholic Church that used to be all powerful in the land wishes to resume that power. Jesus did not intend for the religion of to day to be here. It is not holding to its true meaning I do not belive. Jesus was a great man in my opinion, but I do not believe he was born of imaculate conception. I also believe that The Church would do anything to get back the power it once had.

Conspiracy theory....conspiracy theory....conspiracy theory....

If you want to believe in false teachings and lies, which the two "gospels" you listed are, go ahead. They are gnostic gospels, dated around 350AD, which is 350 years after the life of Jesus Christ:

http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/gnostic-gospels.html


I guess that you also believe that the Old Testament is a bunch of lies too right? That the Catholic Church modified that as well to stay in power? You know the same Old Testament which predicts the virgin birth? The same Old Testament which states explicitly how Jesus was going to die (and did).

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the Catholic Church hasn't faced corruption, it has. I think the biggest one that I know of is when they sold scrolls that would ensure the dead into heaven, as a fund raiser kind of thing to build lavish Churches. I disagree with pretty much the whole Catholic way of "church", and think that it is pretty clear that Jesus was being sarcastic when he called Peter the "rock". Regardless of my beliefs of the denomination, I will not deny that it can bring a personal relationship with Christ. To each their own.
 
  • #16
The bible was written by over 70 something men if I recall correctly. It was also written over a time period of almost 1000 years. If God spoke through all those men, what about now? Why couldn't God speak through someone in the present with enough conviction to have his word added to the bible? If someone told us they wrote a book to add to the bible that God helped him create, we would call him crazy (Catholics included).

There were around a total of 40 authors for the whole Bible. The New Testament books (letters really), were all written by around ~70 AD. All people in Jesus' life time:

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

Why would God need to speak to someone to add something to the Bible? Everything has been written, beginning and end. Everything has been finished by Christ. There is no need to add more. Nothing more to do but spread the Good News and wait for the sounding of the trumpets.
 
  • #17
I don't believe the OT is a bunch of lies. I believe it's a bunch of stories which may be based mostly (loosely or not) on history. It's not a text book and I take very very very little of it literally.

I never found catholicism very appealing. So much needless ritual (IMO). The Church became a miniature government, with hierarchies, and I don't like that at all. So very strict, too. Of course I've never met a catholic that's strict... of course I only know three and one is my age. Of course I don't care what they do. At least they don't come knocking on my door like some other religions. One time I was at a public swimming area at a lake and some dude wanted to baptize me. For a sixth-grader, that was pretty scary. Came up to me in front of everyone. I don't even know why he picked me. Anyway, the point to my rambling is that prosetylzing is so uncomfortable. I think more people should tone down the evangelicalism. Wait until someone else brings it up before you talk about it.... nothing clears a room like "I'd like to talk to you about Jesus!"
 
  • #18
I don't believe the OT is a bunch of lies. I believe it's a bunch of stories which may be based (loosely or not) on history. It's not a text book.

It is more than a bunch of stories. It shows the standards and character of God, the attempts and failures of people chosen by God, and the foreshadowing and setup of Jesus.

I never found catholicism very appealing. So much needless ritual (IMO). The Church became a miniature government, with hierarchies, and I don't like that at all. So very strict, too. Of course I've never met a catholic that's strict... of course I only know three and one is my age. Of course I don't care what they do. At least they don't come knocking on my door like some other religions. One time I was at a public swimming area at a lake and some dude wanted to baptize me. For a sixth-grader, that was pretty scary. Came up to me in front of everyone. I don't even know why he picked me. Anyway, the point to my rambling is that prosetylzing is so uncomfortable. I think more people should tone down the evangelicalism. Wait until someone else brings it up before you talk about it.... nothing clears a room like "I'd like to talk to you about Jesus!"

I agree with a lot of the sentiments you listed, however just the same other people get something out of it. I've experienced a lot of aggressive evangelists as well both before I knew Christ and after. They turn me off as a Christian and I think they do a disservice, even though I know they're trying to do something good. It's just not the way Jesus was. He met people, loved people, got to know people, and hung out with people. He wasn't an annoying used car salesman who was trying to sell you a car. He invested in people and loved them genuinely and that's the model I believe every Christian should try to follow. I try my best not to come off as that used car salesmen on here on these forums but at the same time it would be wrong for me to read something false and not respond to it. Communicating over the internet also adds a lack of personal meaning.
 
  • #19
Well, it may do that but I still believe it's still a bunch of stories. And don't get me wrong, it's a GREAT read if you treat it like a book instead of homework, and I'm sure that it can teach you great lessons you can apply to your personal life if you view it through the right prism. I really do believe religion is like a drug. It doesn't do harm nor good in and of it's self, but it's the way the individual utilizes it, and external influences, that affect the outcome.

But, I really take a lot of it with a grain of salt. The God portrayed in the OT was really different from the God portrayed in the NT. I mean... I'd still be an atheist if I believed that God was the way he was portrayed in the OT. That was why I was an atheist, I guess. Maybe I never stopped believing but had disdain instead, who knows? Anyway, the point is that I guess that's why I have such different views than you.

Or maybe I believe in such a different "personality" (I say "personality" because "form" would imply that I believe in a different God than you do, which isn't true (although you have made implied it in the past in one of our quarrels". Don't ask me to look it up... we've had long and numerous "quarrels" :) ) because on some level I feel that what I believe is better than believing in nothing. Maybe my lax view of the concept of "sin" has been manifested to conform to my own lifestyle. Or, of course all of this speculation could be BS because if I knew my own subconscious then it wouldn't be my subconscious, now would it? I think the REAL answer is that my Hydroxyzine has made my loosen up and ideas are flowing out of my head like so much wine.
 
  • #20
Well, it may do that but I still believe it's still a bunch of stories. And don't get me wrong, it's a GREAT read if you treat it like a book instead of homework, and I'm sure that it can teach you great lessons you can apply to your personal life if you view it through the right prism. I really do believe religion is like a drug. It doesn't do harm nor good in and of it's self, but it's the way the individual utilizes it, and external influences, that affect the outcome.

But, I really take a lot of it with a grain of salt. The God portrayed in the OT was really different from the God portrayed in the NT. I mean... I'd still be an atheist if I believed that God was the way he was portrayed in the OT. That was why I was an atheist, I guess. Maybe I never stopped believing but had disdain instead, who knows? Anyway, the point is that I guess that's why I have such different views than you.

Or maybe I believe in such a different "personality" (I say "personality" because "form" would imply that I believe in a different God than you do, which isn't true (although you have made implied it in the past in one of our quarrels". Don't ask me to look it up... we've had long and numerous "quarrels" :) ) because on some level I feel that what I believe is better than believing in nothing. Maybe my lax view of the concept of "sin" has been manifested to conform to my own lifestyle. Or, of course all of this speculation could be BS because if I knew my own subconscious then it wouldn't be my subconscious, now would it? I think the REAL answer is that my Hydroxyzine has made my loosen up and ideas are flowing out of my head like so much wine.

I think you are just confused about the contextual, cultural and background information involved in the OT. The God in the OT is the same God of the NT and today. Jesus Christ was the human incarnation of the God of the OT. If the God of the OT was truly that unloving, wicked and horrid as for some reason you believe, then why are Jews so passionate for God? The fact is mankind sinned against God, and instead of wiping us out he gave us grace. He pursued us and setup covenants with us. There were rules in these agreements with God and breaking these rules had consequences. He then ultimately, after establishing that nobody can meet the measure of the OT law, sent his son to live by the rules without failure and then to die for all of us, once and for all.
 
Back
Top