[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

My apologies, but I get so anxious at times that I type too fast in a rush to respond to some things that I read. Sometimes in a rush to type Bible I miss the second "B" altogether and then it just comes out as Bile. And I certainly don't want anyone to get a mistaken view of my feelings toward the Good Book as Bile. I must be more careful.

That would be bad. We also don't want people thinking you are some kind of pervert, sexually obsessed with gay French hobbits named Bilbe.

[Jessi Schurt]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

My apologies, but I get so anxious at times that I type too fast in a rush to respond to some things that I read. Sometimes in a rush to type Bible I miss the second "B" altogether and then it just comes out as Bile. And I certainly don't want anyone to get a mistaken view of my feelings toward the Good Book as Bile. I must be more careful.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Numbers 23:22 Read your Bible!

Absolutely!


Would you want to cross a unicorn? I wouldn't.

Are you saying then that some of the things in the Bilbe aren't true or are you saying that all things in the Bilbe aren't true?

I'm not sure what "Bilbe" is. Sounds like a gay French hobbit.

I'm pretty sure that all things said by a gay French hobbit are questionable, at best.

If some things in the Bilbe are true then it is possible that all things in the Bible are true is it not? If all things are possibly true then how do you differentiate which may and which may not be true? You can't just pick and choose. The Bible is right and true in so many respects that to not believe that it is all true is just plain ignorant. In the case of unicorns, as the Bible says they are true and you say they are not can you offer some proof that contradicts the Bible? No you can't can you.

Ah, now this is good stuff, Jessi. And quite correct.

It's not reasonable to think that one part of the Bible is true, but another is not, and somehow think that a mere human can tell the difference. Well said!

And as you can see from the picture I've posted above, unicorns are quite real.

So are cherubim. But they, like unicorns, were "romanticized" during the Renaissance.


These are fantasies of a Catholic pedophile named Raphael. They are not cherubim, and are not Biblical. Note how they gaze lustfully upward, doubtless peeking under the gown of some Papist pervert.


This is one attempt to depict a cherub, as described in the Bible. Note the distinct lack of "cuteness"; they are terrifying creatures of God, not sweet little babies with wings that poo on you as they fly by.

[Jessi Schurt]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Are you saying then that some of the things in the Bilbe aren't true or are you saying that all things in the Bilbe aren't true? If some things in the Bilbe are true then it is possible that all things in the Bible are true is it not? If all things are possibly true then how do you differentiate which may and which may not be true? You can't just pick and choose. The Bible is right and true in so many respects that to not believe that it is all true is just plain ignorant. In the case of unicorns, as the Bible says they are true and you say they are not can you offer some proof that contradicts the Bible? No you can't can you.

[Jessi Schurt]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Just because the bible says something DOES NOT mean it is true. Like unicorns

Numbers 23:22 Read your Bible!

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Just because the bible says something DOES NOT mean it is true. Like unicorns

What about them?

[sinnanomo]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Just because the bible says something DOES NOT mean it is true. Like unicorns

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Surely a flat earth would mean that gravitational force would decline towards the edges of the 'disc'? (as gravitational force is directly related to mass).

That makes no sense at all.

Seeing as that someone weighs the same if they stand in either NY or LA isn't this inconsistent with the flat earth theory?

Are you sure they do?

First, there is the variation of gravity with latitude that you alluded to: you weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than on the equator.

Looks like even your scientists disagree with you. And they say that gravity increases as you near the frozen poles (or, as Landover's Creation Scientheologists say, the "rim of ice and snow").

Also, concerning the use of sundials and the different rates at which shadows produced by them move...are consistent with a round earth. How does the flat earth theory support this observation?

If the sun moves in a circle, or even is stationary with the earth turning like a record on a turntable below, the sundial effect would be identical.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Surely a flat earth would mean that gravitational force would decline towards the edges of the 'disc'? (as gravitational force is directly related to mass).
Seeing as that someone weighs the same if they stand in either NY or LA isn't this inconsistent with the flat earth theory?...

As gravity is inconsistent with a flat earth, the easy thing to do is get rid of gravity.

Google "Intelligent Falling" for more info.

...Also, concerning the use of sundials and the different rates at which shadows produced by them move...are consistent with a round earth. ...

Please elaborate on how this cannot be consistent with a flat earth.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Surely a flat earth would mean that gravitational force would decline towards the edges of the 'disc'? (as gravitational force is directly related to mass).
Seeing as that someone weighs the same if they stand in either NY or LA isn't this inconsistent with the flat earth theory?

That doesn't even make sense.

[DrCheddarJoel]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Surely a flat earth would mean that gravitational force would decline towards the edges of the 'disc'? (as gravitational force is directly related to mass).
Seeing as that someone weighs the same if they stand in either NY or LA isn't this inconsistent with the flat earth theory?

Also, concerning the use of sundials and the different rates at which shadows produced by them move...are consistent with a round earth. How does the flat earth theory support this observation?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Intelligent Pulling is nearly imperceptible, meaning you cannot tell that it is happening. Therefore, you feel as if you are going in a straight line over a horizon, but you are actually traveling in a subtle arc over a flat surface. The same thing occurs with remotely operated vehicles, like heliocopters.

The more I learn about God's Way, the more in Awe I stand. How could anybody not see the glory and majesty and power that is our LORD?

[CreationistRoger]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Wait! Then we can send a remote controled helicoper with a camera to the edge? Without going there ourselves? Is that possible?

Just asking.

Your facetiousness and snarky sarcasm are not needed in this thread madam. If you want to continue to deny logic and basic truths that's fine by me, but don't do it with such a disgusting 'tude.

Want to continue to deny that we live on a flat Earth? Go to Topeka Kansas and drive about 10 miles. Afterwards, come back here and tell us with a straight face that we live on a giant ball. It's simply psuedoscience!

-Yours in Christ, Roger.

[Professor Bessemer]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Wait! Then we can send a remote controled helicoper with a camera to the edge? Without going there ourselves? Is that possible?

Just asking.

Intelligent Pulling is nearly imperceptible, meaning you cannot tell that it is happening. Therefore, you feel as if you are going in a straight line over a horizon, but you are actually traveling in a subtle arc over a flat surface. The same thing occurs with remotely operated vehicles, like heliocopters.

[Karen Nightingale]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

No one can.

Once a person or vessel gets close enough to 'see it' , the intelligent pulling is stronger than man and all that are in the proximity are pulled over the edge.

This statement as well as Biblical proofs have been provided time and time again in this thread.

Wait! Then we can send a remote controled helicoper with a camera to the edge? Without going there ourselves? Is that possible?

Just asking.