Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
New "View" Co-Host Sherri Shepherd Doesn't Know If World Is Flat
huffingtonpost.com — If the bible says the world is flat, then it must be, right? Watch her try to wiggle out of giving an answer.
SheilaNoya- 1821 diggs
- digg it
- sheasie, on 10/10/2007, -31/+203The problem is simple: If you acknowledge that any part of the bible is wrong, then the floodgates open: Maybe other parts of the bible are wrong too?!
- mrlyons, on 10/22/2007, -31/+75I don't believe the bible says the world is flat, anywhere. I'm not religious at all, but I'm not a fan of people bashing religion whenever they THINK it's applicable.
This is plain stupidity. There are plenty of religious people out there who know the earth is a sphere.- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+69Which is of course irrelevant to this story.
The question isn't whether or not some religious people realize the earth is a sphere. The issue is why should anyone think otherwise. Any system of thought that teaches it's practitioners to reject accepted scientific standards, only on the basis of theological convenience, should be rejected utterly.- pudgyv, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Submitter made it relevant.
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+67Forget the religion spin. My question is how does someone who apparently has no basic education become a host on a national television program?
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33...because it's one of the few jobs that requires no brain activity whatsoever?
- SimianSamurai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That's not true, I can fake stupid and I'm not famous
- directedition, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The ice walls! They are closing in!
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Kelly Ripa......nuff said.
- DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Maybe the world is flat ... Maybe our perception of our known dimensions causes it to look round at a distance? A Frisbee looks like a line from one angle and a circle at another angle. Maybe God can see the 4th, 5th etc etc dimensions and it is flat from his perspective(s). Open your minds liberals! If you can believe that there are parallel universes then you can believe in a flat earth theory.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1My mind is fully accepting of the possibility that you are a dolt.
- brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15@sabach: All about knowing the right people.
- Azuroth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8@brufleth: You realize you can reply to comments directly, yes?
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -5/+43From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_disputes_over_heliocentrism
"Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.""
And about what the church did to people:
"But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616, the Jesuits moved toward Tycho's teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory. For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life."- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6That's proof that the the Bible say the world is flat? Bush's beliefs are firmly established and cannot be moved. That doesn't stop him from bringing them to Texas. And what do you call a sunrise? A morning rotation?
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14I'm an atheist, but allow me to play devil's advocate. Sure the earth rotates and orbits, but religious people could just claim that the planet isn't being moved by anything outside of natural forces. Thus god can't be disproved and the argument continues. Also, the bible needs to be read in a literary sense to understand what they're trying to say. They're trying to say the world is far too large and grand to be moved, and that is supposed to be interpreted as the mightiness of god. Attacking literal passages in the bible isn't the way to go. Followers will just twist passages the way that Bill O'Reilly twists facts.
- diggdallas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Dugg down because you had to "qualify" yourself by professing your stupid atheism.
- goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0ok, so god put the earth on its foundations and it can not be moved. Well yeah, what about if the foundations are mobile? like joker said. The thing about words is they can be interpreted and re-interpreted depending on who's doing the interpreting. I dont see anything wrong with gaining new knowledge and realising that I may have misunderstood something Ive read. But apparantly a lot of people do! And it only makes you look stupid if you insist on denying the patently obvious based on old possible mis-interpretations. The bible itself has undergone multiple rewrites over the years, as things are included and excluded.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Technically, the book of Pslam is a poetic book, so taking things out of there at their figurative meaning would be misinterpreting them.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Does a sphere have four corners?
Job 9:6
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. (KJV)
The earth is basically a table? How are those pillars holding up, btw?- obrysii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16To the people who wrote the bible, yes -- it was basically flat. As they had a small world-view, it is easy to understand why they thought that.
- vtron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24The problem is that the bible is (supposed to be) the word of GOD. If you're Christian, it doesn't matter what the people that wrote the bible knew. If human error and lack of knowledge plays a part in the bible, it cannot be the word of god.
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Being a Christian isn't about believing that the Bible is verbatim. Being a Christian is about following the teachings of Jesus as defined in the Bible. If the Bible was complete *****, made up by a drunk eleven year old, that wouldn't change my stance [ I consider myself a Christian ]. I don't go to Church, I don't know all the verses by heart, I masturbate, I occasionally lie...I'm not a textbook example of a Christian, but there's no denying that the Bible teaches strong morals.
I think if that the world followed the Ten Commandments it'd be a better place, that's why I consider myself a Christian. Even if God / Jesus / Heaven / Sainthood / Afterlife / Paradise don't exist, the morals are the reason I'm interested in religion. - rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Right, but they claimed that God told them what to write. Either God gave them bad information for some reason or they made the whole thing up.
- julianrod, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13@GawtMilk
You seem nice... try looking elsewere if you want morals. Maybe common sense? - goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1or being merely human, and possibly not the smartest cookies in the tin - they completely failed to understand the picture god was explaining to them, and they made all sorts of mistakes. Go on, explain The electoral / political system to a six year old - in absolute detail - then ask them to explain it back to you. See how much they grasped.
- sethisastud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So, GawtMilk...when did Jesus say I can't get married to another guy? The reason most oft cited is Christianity.
- InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Four Corners? Sounds like a tetrahedron to me :)
- airiox, on 10/14/2007, -16/+4You're an idiot. the four corners of the world isn't meant to be taken literally. But an idiot like you would obviously think that. Blinded by your hatred you fail to reason.
- jub0r, on 10/14/2007, -4/+5Does the earth have four corners? Sure. They are right on the borders between Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. The world is flat, it's just wrapped around a sphere of God's love!
- goldfishey, on 10/14/2007, -1/+10Those arent pillars - those are elephants! ;) and after that its turtles, all the way down!
- TubaTechno, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7First and foremost, Isaiah is a book full of prophetic meanings and poetic literature. If you're seriously going to take that verse literal, then you'll have to take most of the verses in Isaiah literally, which clearly doesn't make any sense.
Secondly, the Hebrew word that was translated into "corners" is KANAPH. It is translated "borders" in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated "four corners" and again in Isaiah 11:12 "four corners." Job 37:3 and 38:13 as "ends." The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is GONIA. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions.
Thirdly, the Bible states that the earth is a sphere or more loosely, circular: Isaiah 40:22 - "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".
I'm happy to discuss all these things with you and whatever verses you may bring to light during this discussion. But to assume that all Christians believe that the world is flat, evolution does not exists, and the earth is 6,000 years old is simply a logical fallacy. - atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A circle is not "loosely" a sphere any more than a line is "loosely" a circle. As bonerjams2ke has pointed out time and again, there were different words for circle and sphere (''chuwg' and 'duwr') so that the author(s) could have written sphere if that was the intention. Clearly, it was not.
- Sneakernets, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2THE FOUR CORNERS ARE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST. LEARN TO THINK.
- obrysii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16To the people who wrote the bible, yes -- it was basically flat. As they had a small world-view, it is easy to understand why they thought that.
- SuperDominO83, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Of course it's easy to claim almost anything about the bible when you take the verses out of context.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in; (NRSV)
Job 26:7
He stretches out Zaphon over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing. (NRSV)- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Job 39:9-12 KJV. I don't think that makes the bible look any better in any context.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/unicorn.html
- Memitim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Actually, it seems to be pretty easy to just claim anything about the bible at all. I have to admit that even though I hate the writing style of most of the book, it is a masterwork in obfuscation, only rivaled by the writings of Nostradamus.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Job 39:9-12 KJV. I don't think that makes the bible look any better in any context.
- ellecon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The Earth is actually shaped more like a Smartie than an orange.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+69Which is of course irrelevant to this story.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -7/+37Maybe I missed it, but when did she say it had anything to do with the Bible?
- Rodman930, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Read the website.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4She clearly has never read the Bible then...
- brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21No many people do anymore. Even people who claim to be christian often only have a vague idea of the Christmas story and maybe the Easter story and beyond that they just assume its a sit com about bearded guys and their wacky adventures.
- Jonjonr6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Hence, the Jesus action figures at Walmart.
- Rodman930, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Read the website.
- abbott75, on 10/10/2007, -14/+25Can somebody please tell me where in the Bible the world is called flat? The earth is called a circle in Isaiah 40:22, but nowhere does it say that the earth is flat.
- wolfkeeper, on 10/14/2007, -10/+50It's not a circle it's a sphere. Circles *are* flat.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2no if you live in FLATLAND.
- yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Yiddish word for circle is the same as sphere.
- Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11What were the Yiddish words for "circle" and "Sphere" a few thousand years ago?
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Hebrew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish - Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The word is "chug" or" "choog" which means both circle and sphere.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Hebrew
- tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -7/+40In Daniel 4:11, there is a reference to a tree that is visible from "all the corners of the earth". The only way for this to be literally possible is for the Earth to be flat. On a spherical Earth, the best you can do is make it visible to 50% of the surface (if it were to grow infinitely tall) without having to make the tree wider than the Earth.
- sloonark, on 10/10/2007, -19/+16Even nowadays people use phrases like 'the four corners of the earth' and 'to the ends of the earth'. Doesn't mean anyone thinks the world is flat. If this is the best evidence, then it's pretty lame.
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21Those phrases come from a time when people thought the world was flat. If they didn't, they wouldn't have said "the four corners of the earth". We still say them today because we still speak English/whatever other language has phrases like that too.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is circular (or chum - which can also mean spherical). So which is correct? Isaiah 11:12 or 40:22?
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3So tehtopher, you're arguing for the literal interpretation of the Bible or against it?
- tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I'm saying that a literal interpretation leads one to believe that the author had a fundamentally flawed understanding of the shape of the world. There is no logical reason to say this is metaphor other than the fact that it doesn't make logical sense. And considering that the Bible doesn't have the best record regarding scientific fact, I think there's a strong case that the author believed that the Earth was flat.
- tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I'm saying that a literal interpretation leads one to believe that the author had a fundamentally flawed understanding of the shape of the world. There is no logical reason to say this is metaphor other than the fact that it doesn't make logical sense. And considering that the Bible doesn't have the best record regarding scientific fact, I think there's a strong case that the author believed that the Earth was flat.
- jasepower, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14If you read the context of that verse, the tree that was visible from "all the corners of the earth" was from Nebuchadnezzar's (the King of Babylon at that time) dream. Is everything you dream literally possible?
- Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6North, East, South, West. Ever think about it that way? We still use the term "four corners of the Earth" today, just differently.
- tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3A tree in Antarctica would not be visible from the North Pole, no matter how tall it grows.
- sloonark, on 10/10/2007, -19/+16Even nowadays people use phrases like 'the four corners of the earth' and 'to the ends of the earth'. Doesn't mean anyone thinks the world is flat. If this is the best evidence, then it's pretty lame.
- ARob, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3We are such simple creatures... we ASSUME so much, yet we KNOW so little...
- wolfkeeper, on 10/14/2007, -10/+50It's not a circle it's a sphere. Circles *are* flat.
- brokencrystal, on 10/14/2007, -29/+8The problem is simple: People who never read the Bible, may claim that it says something that it does not. The Bible told of a round Earth way before "we" figured it out. If the Bible was right before "we" knew it was, then maybe other parts of the Bible are right before "we" know the answers also?!
- nodlezfodlez, on 10/14/2007, -6/+17well, you see, you are completely wrong. People were prosecuted by the church for saying that the earth went around the sun.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5OK, so what does that have to do with what the Bible says? How am I wrong?
- Sidzilla, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5That means that a human interpreted the bible wrong, not that the bible itself was incorrect.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Which happens more and more everyday....sadly.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/14/2007, -8/+5And where does it say it's a sphere or ball? Really? Where in the entire damn bible is the earth called spherical?
- Pwelborn1, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5So you've studied hebrew and aramaic? I wonder what the word for sphere was in the original translation? It couldn't be the same as the word for circle could it? Of course not. You just want to look at what's before your eyes without doing any research because you need people who are different from you to seem like fools so your ego can be sustained!
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4If you're so smart, why don't you go find the passage in Hebrew and translate it for us. Er wait, you sound like a moron who's just spouting crap. Hold on, I'll check this out, I know a little Hebrew. Gimme a few minutes, and I'll be back with the answer.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Since brokenasshat likes to cut and past the same dame lies so much, I figured I should do the same. The difference? I'll be using the truth, instead. Here we go. My rebuttal to brokencrystal (god, that is such an emo name).
Let me get this straight. The best you can do is quote some asinine crap about the Hebrew word for circle (chuwg) being interchangeable with the word for sphere or ball (duwr)? Blatantly INCORRECT:
CHUWG: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329 (used int Isa 40:22)
DUWR: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754 (used in Isa 22:18)
Now, on to the quote about jeebus's coming.
Luke 17:34: I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
You conveniently left off Luke 17:31:
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
Juxtaposing Luke 17:31 and Luke 17:34, it seems more like the J-man is saying to be alert because this stuff can happen at anytime, day or night. One could even go so far to say that this is a 24+ hour event that will take all day and all night. Either way, no where in the entire context of Luke 17:31-37 does it read as if, nor could it be construed as, these events were happening simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. To paraphrase: "In that day some ***** will happen and in that night the ***** will continue to happen."
Get that weak ***** outta here.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4"So you've studied hebrew and aramaic?"
There are several tools for translating languages. I think you are the one with an ego problem.- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Alright, I'm back. I've looked into the matter. In Isaiah 40:22, it says "circle" to describe the Earth. In Hebrew, the word used is "Chugah" (not official transliteration, just my best guess), which translates to "circle." Sphere, in Hebrew, is an entirely different word, "Chadur" (again, my own transliteration, I never really studied that). So there we have it, two completely different words for sphere and circle. Hope that clears things up a bit.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Since brokenasshat likes to cut and past the same dame lies so much, I figured I should do the same. The difference, I'll be using the truth instead. Here we go. My rebuttal to brokencrystal (god, that is such an emo name).
Let me get this straight. The best you can do is quote some asinine crap about the Hebrew word for circle (chuwg) being interchangeable with the word for sphere or ball (duwr)? Blatantly INCORRECT:
CHUWG: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329 (used int Isa 40:22)
DUWR: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754 (used in Isa 22:18)
Now, on to the quote about jeebus's coming.
Luke 17:34: I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
You conveniently left off Luke 17:31:
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
Juxtaposing Luke 17:31 and Luke 17:34, it seems more like the J-man is saying to be alert because this stuff can happen at anytime, day or night. One could even go so far to say that this is a 24+ hour event that will take all day and all night. Either way, no where in the entire context of Luke 17:31-37 does it read as if, nor could it be construed as, these events were happening simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. To paraphrase: "In that day some ***** will happen and in that night the ***** will continue to happen."
Get that weak ***** outta here.
- Pwelborn1, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5So you've studied hebrew and aramaic? I wonder what the word for sphere was in the original translation? It couldn't be the same as the word for circle could it? Of course not. You just want to look at what's before your eyes without doing any research because you need people who are different from you to seem like fools so your ego can be sustained!
- theshizzler, on 10/14/2007, -1/+7Incorrect on so many levels. Yajnavalkya, an Indian Sage calculated the shape of the Earth around 9,000 years before Christ. The Greek philosophers had calculated the exact diameter of the spheroid Earth about 600-500 years before Christ. The loss of this knowledge can be directly attributed to the Christian persecution of those who desired a secular, non-divine source of knowledge, being our own sense of exploration, innovation, and curiosity. The only counter argument to this is outright denial of Yajnavalkya's age or existence (which presumably comes from the "inerrant" biblical age of the Earth of 6,000 years) which opens up a whole new bag of stupid.
- Disfnord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think you mean 900 years BC for Yajnavalkya.
- nodlezfodlez, on 10/14/2007, -6/+17well, you see, you are completely wrong. People were prosecuted by the church for saying that the earth went around the sun.
- micromause, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Full Clip @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsvhPvK405Q
- acex23, on 10/10/2007, -23/+12Isaiah 40: 22, Proverbs 8: 27, Job 26:7, and 26:10, all seem to cite a round earth. Apparently Bible bashing is so cool you don't even have to check your facts.
- vikingdiplomat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15sorry, but circle != sphere...
- acex23, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13 sorry, but Circle = Hebrew "chuwg",meaning "sphere..."
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8sorry acex23 you're wrong as *****
CHUWG: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329 (used int Isa 40:22)
DUWR: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754 (used in Isa 22:18) - jduley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're wrong..circle gets the square.
- acex23, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13 sorry, but Circle = Hebrew "chuwg",meaning "sphere..."
- phronko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yup. And an omnipotent God should be able to make it clear when he's talking metaphorically and when he's not. If it's not obvious, how do we know any other passage wasn't just a metaphor? Or sarcasm?
- stevedclarke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The idea of a sarcastic god tickles me.
- takamalak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh, like I didn't see *that* coming.
- stevedclarke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The idea of a sarcastic god tickles me.
- ceallaighgirl, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Kind of ironic how they digg you down when you point out the truth that the Bible doesn't say the world is flat.
Heaven forbid people should hear the truth of the matter!
But then, I guess for most digg users, building up straw men is easier.
- vikingdiplomat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15sorry, but circle != sphere...
- IbnDigg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11The world is round.....like a plate
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Or a pizza. Hmm pizza...
- Midvicious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13What a big dumb fat ***** idiot. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that by pure definition. How the ***** and why the ***** are these people allowed to speak in front of a camera?
- ceallaighgirl, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6False premise: The Bible doesn't call the world flat.
- WocEnasni, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5The Bible is not meant to be taken as 100% truth, and I don't think theres a single Christian alive who believes every single word for the bible as literal. proof of this? not a one will say that Jesus is a sheep, even though it says he is the "lamb of God"
- pudgyv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The Bible is meant to be read literally taking into account that it contains all forms of human expression such as metaphor, simile, symbolism, prose and poetry just like secular of literature.
- InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried for double talk
- pudgyv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How's this then? Take every word at its primary literal meaning unless the immediate context demands otherwise. That's called basic reading comprehension.
- InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried for double talk
- saltinekracka20, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Careful with how you state that. There are millions of Christians that will tell you the bible is 100% truth, it just isnt 100% literal in its meaning.
- gromnie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"I don't think theres a single Christian alive who believes every single word for the bible as literal."
You are so tragically, woefully wrong.
Poll: 63% of Americans think Bible literally true
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43957 - hashref, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hence the real issue with many Christians and the bible. At times it's literal, while other times it's not. How can you argue anything where the rules constantly change based on whether or not you get backed into a corner? The best solution is to just roll your eyes and move on.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If the Bible really is so embroiled with metaphors so difficult to 'interpret' that "the Earth is a circle" could really mean "the Earth is a circle, and by circle I mean sphere", then perhaps "God created the heavens and the Earth" really means "God created everything, and by God I mean purely natural phemomenon because God isn't real". Or, perhaps "Do not commit adultery" really means "Do not commit adultery unless the person is really really hot".
Or is a passage only a metaphor when it is convenient for the theologian?
- pudgyv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The Bible is meant to be read literally taking into account that it contains all forms of human expression such as metaphor, simile, symbolism, prose and poetry just like secular of literature.
- Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Isaiah 40:22 states: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
The word circle, in this case, is actually translated from the Hebrew word "chug" which means circle and sphere. When translating it into the King James version, know one knew the world was round and decided it would make more sense to translate that as circle rather than sphere. The Bible doesn't say the world is flat.- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4After doing some of my own studying, Im' pretty sure "chug" (more correctly: khoog) cannot be translated into sphere.
- Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Hebrew-English dictionary and The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (http://books.google.com/books?id=tp0CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT6&dq=The+Analytical+Hebrew+and+Chaldee+Lexicon&ei=WKHxRpLlGYKmowKJ64mYBA#PPA1,M1) say otherwise.
- aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The main difference between a round earth and a flat earth, was whether or not traveling in a direction brings you back from the other side. Other then that the actual shape of the earth is relative. You can mathematically flatten the earth and warp everything else around it, you can even inverse the earth so that you are inside of a sphere, it's all relative after all. The further you move away from the earth the less it's going to look like something you recognize.
- mrlyons, on 10/22/2007, -31/+75I don't believe the bible says the world is flat, anywhere. I'm not religious at all, but I'm not a fan of people bashing religion whenever they THINK it's applicable.
- dainfagerholm, on 10/10/2007, -86/+119Its official! RELIGION=STUPIDITY
- max1574, on 10/10/2007, -31/+33its been official for a long long time
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -16/+17No, its not, I know any number of VERY smart people who are religious, they even believe in evolution, they have adapted their beliefs.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -24/+4A Christian who believes in macro-evolution is plain stupid and contradictory. Believing in macro-evolution doesn't make you smart... it shows you have faith in something that is unobservable and unprovable. It's kind of religious really.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3You also have no idea what you are tlaking about. The are NOT mutually exclusive in any way, shape or form. It is clear that you haev no idea what relgion is all about. Which brings up the question...since you DON'T know anything about religion, what the ***** makes you think you are capable of having an intelligent discussion about it?
- rune420, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Einsteins Theory of Relativity isn't directly observable either, nor is it definitively provable. Does that make it a religion as well?
- Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8How is macroevolution unprovable or unobservable? Is it unprovable because I can't in a lifetime sit down and watch big mammals evolve into new big mammals and beyond? In principle, I could gather a huge and complete set of genetic data over a million years, sit down and analyze it and show you exactly where genetic mutations occurred and where species differentiated, with no controversy over missing links or incomplete records. If it is only unprovable based on your notion that I can't live long enough to see it, then it's not really unprovable.
- obrysii, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2As my science professor has said: science and religion are not opposites, they just look for different things. Religion looks for the Ultimate cause, whereas science looks at the smaller causes of things. Many, many scientists believe in God -- does that mean they are all stupid? Does that mean they are all ignorants who believe the world is 6,000 years old? No. It is entirely possible to be both scientific and religious.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1"Many, many scientists believe in God -- does that mean they are all stupid?" While this is very true, not all scientists believe in macro-evolution. If fact, there are thousands who seriously doubt it.
"How is macroevolution unprovable or unobservable? Is it unprovable because I can't in a lifetime sit down and watch big mammals evolve into new big mammals and beyond?"
There is not even good evidence to support it. There is no fossil record that supports the theory. Only micro-evolution is true and everything else is an assumption. (In the evolution category) Erasing the line between the two, doesn't make them both true. That is deception. So, we can't prove it because it takes too long, and we don't need evidence because this is the way we believe it happened. Let's just assume that it is true and teach it as fact. How is this scientific again? I have an idea, instead, let's use scientific method. - imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thousands of Scientists doubt evolution? I see only about 150 signed up for the Creation Institute website. As opposed to the tens of thousands of scientists who do believe in evolution?
You continue to be a complete and utter liar or are completely and utterly delusional. The fossil record supports the theory, genetics supports it, basic biology supports it, geology support is it is only your complete and utter stupidity and religious retardation that doesn't.
Apparently your great religion allows you to blatantly lie. Get lost. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, we can see CLEAR evidence of large-scale change in the fossil record. Just because you refuse to accept it does not make it false. Stop misrepresenting science when you try to push your anti-evolution agenda - and don't forget, the flawed micro/macro model you KEEP BRINGING UP was thrown out in the '30s since it did not fit the evidence.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15Which is of course to say they have reduced the number of superstitions they still believe in. They should keep going with that trend to it's logical completion. Naturalistic Ätheism.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6You are making a fool of yourself Todd. Seriously.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2religion and dogma are two very different things...
dogmatic people will blindly follow anything... religion... science... lemmings... emos...
It's an unfortunate fact for christians, muslims and any other written word religion that they are religions based on books of dogma. I can have respect for these individuals as a person, but my respect for them as an intellectual or spiritually awakened individual is limited.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -24/+4A Christian who believes in macro-evolution is plain stupid and contradictory. Believing in macro-evolution doesn't make you smart... it shows you have faith in something that is unobservable and unprovable. It's kind of religious really.
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -16/+17No, its not, I know any number of VERY smart people who are religious, they even believe in evolution, they have adapted their beliefs.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -19/+57thank you for your bigotry. let me correct you: the view = stupidity
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -22/+13There is nothing bigoted about accurate observations. buried.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Seriosuly...you are the reasons why atheists have a bad name. All the atheists in the world want yo to shut the ***** up. they don't WANT the world to know you are part of their group. You are a sad, pathetic little nothing whose life centers around what other people think.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8And aren't you the just the image of a an Athiest I'm sure the group wants. Making broad sweeping accuzations about a complete stranger over a few short comments on digg. Very mature. Very worldly. Not at all abusrd or childish.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry - you pride your self on your critical thinking skills as an ashiest who is smart enough to find religion a farce but you are too ignorant to understand the definition of bigotry... pathetic
- sprash, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4OK if Religion = Stupidity and The View = Stupidity then we can conclude that:
The View = Religion- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1despite faulty logic you are correct... ***** old women
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -22/+13There is nothing bigoted about accurate observations. buried.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -21/+32You have proven yourself to be stupid. The Bible does not say the earth is flat. ANYWHERE.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/10/2007, -9/+17He didn't say it did. Nice logic you've got there. Who's proving what now?
- Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you didn't "say it", then you either a) implied it, or b) was commenting on something irrelevant
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14You idiots that mock a Bible you have never read are showing your stupidity. So far 117 diggs and counting of stupid, uneducated people... The Bible never says the earth is flat. In fact, it was saying the world was round before "we" even figured it out on our own.
- indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Considering I haven't seen "117" comments saying the Bible stated the world was flat, you might want to step off your own high horse and stop assuming things as well.
- tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13It doesn't say the world is round but it does imply that the world is flat:
Daniel 4:10-11
"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"
The only way the tree could be visible to the whole earth is if the earth is flat. There are numerous other instances of such assertions that the Earth is flat. As an atheist, I urge you to read the book your religion is founded on.- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Nu-uh! It could also mean that we live on the *inside* of a sphere.
OMGZ! The Hollow Earth-society was right this whole time! ;P - stevedclarke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think the key word there is 'visions'. I've taken moonflowers before and seen 'visions' of dragons and talking cats. Were there really dragons and talking cats? I'm pretty sure there weren't. Thats the thing about visions.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Bad example, that was a dream... Oh and what are these moonflowers you speak of?
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do people not realize that the Bible has metaphorical meanings such as in visions and dreams?! Or are they all going to pick pieces out of context and PROVE that the Bible is stupid?
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Nu-uh! It could also mean that we live on the *inside* of a sphere.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
A sphere or ball *cannot* have corners or ends, therefore the writers of the bible (there were many of them, they were all men) are literally promulgating the image of a flat earth. These are not 'figures of speech'. The primitive society from which the bible stories sprang believed the earth to be flat. In addition, according to these wise prophets, the earth has pillars that support it, and cannot be moved.- deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5They didn't have exaggeration back then? I'm all for the triumph of knowledge, but I have -never- been led to believe the Earth was 'flat' by any Christian educator. Hell, the fact there is a horizon disproves that possibility.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You're a lot smarter than people living 2,000 years ago. Originally, in fact up until only about the end of the 1800s, the bible was considered to be the literal word of god, transmitted via his intermediaries on earth, and was incapable of error. This is in spite of the fact that the text is riddled with inconsistencies, blatant contradictions and provable errors. Up until the invention of the printing press, most people never got to read the bible text itself, in fact for a long time in most places the law was that only priests got to read it. Even though by the 19th century most people could read and get hold of a bible, many, many stupidities were continued to be held as fact, based upon the bronze-age ignorance of the bible myths.
A 'Christian educator' these days would not try to convince anyone the earth was flat, because he would be laughed at. The same reason he would not try and convince you a bat was a type of bird, nevertheless, the bible states this. They no longer try to push the more obviously stupid things in the bible, but continue to push the stuff that people haven't cottoned-on to yet.
500 years ago, you wouldn't have to be 'led to believe' the earth was flat, you'd just grow up assuming it was. Nobody needed to be told so, it was a natural assumption (despite the obvious problems with the horizon and watching a ship go over it, etc). Many people *did* notice these discrepancies, but what do you think happened to them? - deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Not 500 years ago it didn't. The idea of the Earth as a sphere pre-dates Christianity. This woman's stupidity is not related to religion as there is no teaching of the idea that the Earth is flat in religion.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You're a lot smarter than people living 2,000 years ago. Originally, in fact up until only about the end of the 1800s, the bible was considered to be the literal word of god, transmitted via his intermediaries on earth, and was incapable of error. This is in spite of the fact that the text is riddled with inconsistencies, blatant contradictions and provable errors. Up until the invention of the printing press, most people never got to read the bible text itself, in fact for a long time in most places the law was that only priests got to read it. Even though by the 19th century most people could read and get hold of a bible, many, many stupidities were continued to be held as fact, based upon the bronze-age ignorance of the bible myths.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3what about the parts that describe it as round... oh that doesn't work with your anti religion diatribe. carry on with your ignorance.
- deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5They didn't have exaggeration back then? I'm all for the triumph of knowledge, but I have -never- been led to believe the Earth was 'flat' by any Christian educator. Hell, the fact there is a horizon disproves that possibility.
- MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12People postulated the world was a sphere long before the bible.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yes, the Greeks, for instance. However, with the coming of the rule of the Church, there were 1500 years of dark age, where learning was suppressed. Many of the old Greek & Roman philosophers' texts were either scraped clean to re-use for religious books, or burned. Ancient knowledge such as that of Pythagoras or Plato was considered heretical or pagan. You would face serious punishment if you went around promoting that stuff, at the height of the power of the Church.
- hplasm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The BIBLE knew the Earth was round before 'we' did? How did it know? What else does it know? Ask it where Jimmy Hoffa is!
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1www.biblecode.com - - hehe, wierd stuff
- bemenaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1HAHAHAHAHA, just how fuhqing stupid do you have too be to not be able to answer this so basic and obvious question. Please, kick people this stupid out of the gene pool, or at least sterilize them.
- Rossoneri22, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6Someone that dumb deserves to be shot in the face for all our sakes.
I'm sorry it had to be said.- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9No, it really didn't have to be said.
- TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1on digg for sure. I don't know about the rest of the internet though.
- PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1dupe
- bjs3171, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8***** you. not every highly religious person, and i'm not including myself here, believes in every word the bible preaches. the bible is meant to teach lessons, not teach history, as my former head rabbi once told me.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well then, you would understand that these lessons are not limited to the bible (that is to say that god has taught lessons in the bible, the quaran, or any other religious text, as well as countless non-religious texts, music, works of fiction, works of art, analogies in nature etc etc)
If you're truly highly religious, you wouldn't call yoursel highly christian or highly jewish... you'd have a hard time putting a word to your faith and an even harder time putting a word to "god"... good luck...
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well then, you would understand that these lessons are not limited to the bible (that is to say that god has taught lessons in the bible, the quaran, or any other religious text, as well as countless non-religious texts, music, works of fiction, works of art, analogies in nature etc etc)
- max1574, on 10/10/2007, -31/+33its been official for a long long time
- nascarthunder, on 10/10/2007, -7/+62http://palimpsest.typepad.com/frogsandravens/pictures/earth.jpg
...Pwned- UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34Looks flat.
- martyFREEDOM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42Photoshopped by the government to control the masses.
- mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly, just look at the pixels...
- the42nddegree, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Dude, you're looking at it from a top-down perspective, much like the old Grand Theft Auto games...
- IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5No, the Earth is flat dumb ass. I'm pretty sure Aristotle and Democritus were smarter than you.
- synthox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Bah I need a 3d pic before you sell me pal.
- shaelen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Such a pretty disk!
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6That picture proves nothing.. looks to me like a circle, not a sphere.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Too all you sarcastic bastards that are replying to that image, I'm gonna reply with a more serious question. Where is North and South America in that image? If the earth was indeed flat would you not see the entire planet like you do on a flat map? Or is there some type of weird "edge" that seperates the two sides and indeed probably if I remember right from that picture divides part of Europe in 2? No need to answer the question I'm not actually attacking the sarcasm. I just can't believe the stupidity of people who to this day think the earth is flat.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Oh my bad upon further viewing Europe, Asia, and Australia are also cut out of the picture. According to a flat earth view of that image the earth consists entirely of Africa, part of the Middle East, and Antartica.
- knuckles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5On the back side. All flat surfaces have 2 sides!
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1What if it's triangular? Then it has multiple flat surfaces. World view?
- Stanslikewh0a, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lol, indeed.
- PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17That picture of a "round" earth is just God testing my faith. GET BACK SATAN OR I SHALL PUSH YOU OFF OF MY FLAT PLANE.
but seriously tho, when whoopi begins to sound like the stephen hawking of the table with her scientific knowledge, you know there's a problem.
- Slugs, on 10/10/2007, -15/+293"I dunno nuffin bout no erfs. I gots kids ta feed!"
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+141Looks like she's busier feeding herself than her kids.
- Midvicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4She's a damn lie. She ate her ***** kids a long time ago.
- Magistrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I didn't know that figuring out how to feed your kids took so much time! I mean, if you're host of a major TV show, you must be making enough money to go to the store. But you know... there are so many choices, that leaves little time for things like, oh you know... thinking.
- Memitim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21She was really working that stereotype hard. Sometimes I look at people like her, such as insanely flamboyant gay guys wearing tight pink shirts and weird crap in their hair and southerners with flannel shirts and oily ballcaps driving giant pickup trucks covered in rebel flags, and think that real their aim is to ensure that these stereotypes continue to be perpetuated no matter how ***** lame it makes them look. If I was a black woman, I would drive to that studio and knock her the ***** out.
- Midvicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You have been dugg. I hope you are dugg some more. Because you hit the nail on the head.
- queenstarsha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1she wasn't working any stereotype, and she didn't talk like uncle remus. that, and everything you listed, is what you perceive because hate blinds you.
but the look on whoopi goldberg's face did suggest she was not loving what was happening there.
- vofuse, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4I don't see this as a racial issue at all. It certainly hasn't before when white people made similarly silly statements. I'm really surprised to see this dugg up the way it has been.
- archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I dugg it without thinking it was racist. Perhaps you have the issue since you see every misspelled form of stupidity as something a black person would say? I just saw it as something an idiot would say. There can be no race issue since whoopi is the one who intelligently tripped her up and they are both black. It just goes to show your latent racism or fear of being racist.
- queenstarsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah, that was racist. i wish i were surprised like you, though.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+141Looks like she's busier feeding herself than her kids.
- SonicRush, on 10/10/2007, -21/+108Where does the Bible say the earth is flat?
- DukeMojo, on 10/10/2007, -31/+67Isaiah 11:12
Revelation 7:1
Job 38:13
Jeremiah 16:19
Daniel 4:11
Matthew 4:8
Use http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/- dancerobots, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7You must be speaking of the Rick James version of the bible.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q57ZjWRarM8- eggo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"In the first chapter..."
"Genesis?"
"no, the one after that... Super Nintendo"
I nearly wet myself on that one. Digg for you sir.
- eggo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"In the first chapter..."
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -22/+32it is hilarious when you own links don't back up your stupid claims. The best you can give us are passages that talk about "the ends of the earh"? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that is NOt the same as saying the earth is flat.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+39Round objects don't have ends.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I'm an atheist. But if there were a god, I guess he would be capable of using metaphor in a revealed text.
More disturbing to me in the video is the sight of a woman who claims "never to have thought about" whether the world is flat because she is too busy thinking about feeding her children. The correct nourishment for children is not just food. How about some basic intellectually curiosity and interest in the world about you, lady. - phronko, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9How do we know which passages are metaphor and which are literal? Maybe that whole Jesus thing was just a big metaphor.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's called figurative speaking. If we found every passage that had the phrase "ends of the earth" in it, in every book in the world, I'm sure we'd find more than a few brilliant people saying it, who don't actually believe the earth is flat.
However to play devils advocate, there are some stupid people out there, and the literal bible crowd has obviously more than a few idiots in it who would make this leap.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I'm an atheist. But if there were a god, I guess he would be capable of using metaphor in a revealed text.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Where is the north and south pole? Are those on the ends of the Earth? Which end of the Earth do you live on? What about a sea shore? If you are a construction worker and you move Earth, are you moving land or water?
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3Again, you stupid *****.....People STILL talk about "the ends of the earth" You think they still thikn the earth is flat? People talk about the moon being made of cheese. Scientists talk about rockets soaring to the heavens. the bible is not 100% literal, and never was. Do you honestly think that metaphors were invented a few decades ago?
Seriosuly..if that is all you have, there is no point in you guys going on with life. Your parents did a ***** horrible jkob in raising both of you. You are unprepared for any intelligent debate on anything. You are an embarrassment to your family, and the school systems that you came through. - TheRealDj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13The reason why people say that is because its a phrase from when people thought the earth was flat. And as this video shows, some people do still believe that the earth is flat.
- FunkyPits, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This rant was brought to you by Phizer the makers of Xanax. Who ask have you taken your dosage today?
- debonarion, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7bingobongony
I'm sure god would be pleased with your choice of foul language for debate. Calling people names doesn't change how horribly contradictory the bible is. You might try reading one, it usually helps to back up your debate. - tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Bingobongony seems to prefer ad hominem attacks over actual intellectual discourse.
- CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1there is no room for intelligence in religious debates
- yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And athiests don't resort to name-calling all the time?
- lewscroo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Bingobongony: The bible has to be taken literally. Else, where do the interpretations stop? If its not literal, then what can you truly believe and what can you assume are words to make it sound better?
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above ‘the circle of the earth’ (the Hebrew word for ‘circle’ can also mean a ‘sphere’). Also, Luke 17:34–36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field—an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time. Also, corners or edges of the earth can refer to shores, cliffs, or other borders of the land. Land or dirt can be called Earth.
- cphelps, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3@lewscroo
What you said is so awesome, I don't even know what compliment to use. - oxigen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5My girlfriend and I travel a lot, so we jokingly say we will follow each other "to the ends of the earth," but I by no means believe the earth is flat. It all comes down to whether or not your an idiot. Do you think like a poet and take the phrases as expressions, or do you take them as literal truth. Sadly, there are moronic people of types who for whatever reason think the world is flat.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3lewscroo, that is patently ridiculous. making reasonable assumptions about literal and figurative meaning is perfectly acceptable. Slippery slope arguments don't address the issue at hand, and nobody here really believes that anyway. Parts of the bible are poetry, parts are literature, etc. It's pretty easy to define the literal parts and the figurative parts.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+39Round objects don't have ends.
- OUChevelleSS, on 10/10/2007, -21/+6'Four corners of the earth' does not mean the earth is a flat square. Being on an exceedingly high mountain did not mean that the devil showed Jesus kingdoms from there. And Christians are told to not take the Bible literally...way to go 'skeptics'.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Does this mean that she is just plain ignorant, nomatter how you look at it?
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Today, Christians are told not to take the absurdest parts of the Bible literally, because if they did they would be the laughing stock of humanity. However, before humanity had stumbled upon evidence for an obviously round Earth, people did take it quite literally.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2The Bible says the Earth is round.
- TheRealDj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14In america there are large portions of christians where they absolutely take the bible as the literal truth. I have family that take up those stances.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12The Bible does not say the Earth is round, even though you might wish that it did. The Bible also says that unicorns and giants were real, men used to live hundreds of years, a kid lived inside a fish for 3 days, and that stars can fall down to earth from up in the sky. Sorry if reality is inconvenient for you.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1"The Bible does not say the Earth is round, even though you might wish that it did."
Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. "God sits above ‘the circle of the earth’ " (the Hebrew word for ‘circle’ can also mean a ‘sphere’).
Also, Luke 17:34–36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field—an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.
Sorry if truth is inconvenient for you.- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You speak of inconvenient truth when you refuse to see the truth as presented to you in rebuttals to your ridiculous (and widely disproven) anti-evolution rants.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6chuwg = Hebrew for circle (used in Isaiah 40:22)
duwr = Hebrew for ball (used in Isaiah 22:18)
Surely there is someone here who speaks and writes fluent Hebrew.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19OK, I'm agnostic so I don't even have an emotional bias here and none of that is claiming the Earth is flat. Things like "the four corners of the earth" are expressions. Yes, even in the olden days they had such things as metaphors.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Where do you think those metaphors came from? People used to think that the Earth was flat and had actual corners. In the Bible, "The four corners of the earth" wasn't seen as a metaphor after everyone realized the Earth wasn't flat.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1OK, I'm an atheist. We use the metaphors today and don't believe them to be true. What makes you think that the writers of the bible weren't using it as a metaphor in a similar historical way? On what date do you beleve 'the ends of the earth' was first used as metaphor rather than geographical truth.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So the thing is, and it's pretty common knowlege, that prior to the dark ages, the ancient civilizations, such as egypt, greece, rome, etc, knew the planets were round. It wasn't until the dark ages, that they chose to make those literal jumps in logic, and that set us back quite a ways. But before the dark ages, they had a far better knowlege of the stars, the planets etc, than we give credit for. In fact, they knew about several planets we didn't even consider planets until science caught back up finally, hundreds of years later. They knew about their paths through the sky, That they orbited the sun, and that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. The observed the phases of the moon, and knew it was round, and hence the earth probably was as well. Also, the four corners of the earth was used as a metaphor for the limits of the roman empire back then as well. Which by the way, was considered by romans to be "the known world"
- rejectpenguin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hmm.. Pangea. That is all.
- bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0atheinostic...really? You have any evidence to back up your *****? The bible contains LOTS of metaphors. Ones that were considered metaphors ALL ALONG. Just becuuse YOU claim that they were considered to be literal fact back then does not make it the case.
- tehtopher, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8In Daniel 4:11, there is a reference to a tree that is visible from "all the corners of the earth". The only way for this to be literally possible is for the Earth to be flat. On a spherical Earth, the best you can do is make it visible to 50% of the surface (if it were to grow infinitely tall) without having to make the tree wider than the Earth.
- jasepower, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7If you read the context of that verse, the tree that is visible from "all the corners of the earth" was from Nebuchadnezzar's (then King of Babylon) dream. Is everything you dream possible in real life?
- nhand42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"OK, I'm agnostic so I don't even have an emotional bias here and none of that is claiming the Earth is flat. Things like "the four corners of the earth" are expressions. Yes, even in the olden days they had such things as metaphors."
Sure, but if some things are metaphors then who's to say they aren't all metaphors? People who want the Bible to be the literal word of God can't say "oh but this bit is just a metaphor" whenever it's convenient. - Phatt138, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1bing - you're right, the bible DOES contain a lot of metaphors, many of them surely purposeful. Unfortunately, many religious fanatics are not known for their practice of logical interpretation. Many, in fact, find some kind of superiority in believing the 'literal word.' The woman in question actually tried to claim that the world was flat, directly after being questioned about evolution. Since neither evolution (maybe a few details, but not the whole idea) nor the shape of the world are in question by anyone BUT religious fanatics, it is safe to assume that her 'inspiration' came either directly from her interpretation of the Bible or directly from someone ELSE'S interpretation of the Bible. It's pretty foolish to condemn all religions because of some overzealous followers, but it's also complete denial to claim that Biblical content isn't being used to support a pro-fundamentalist, anti-science social movement.
You're right, to a large degree, but it's hard to listen to someone who's so busy having an aneurism whenever people disagree with him. - gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Nhand42, slippery slope argument. There are earmarks of literal and figurative speaking. Also context needs to be taken into consideration. For example, in the psalms there are a lot of crazy things spoken of. However most of that is poetry, and he uses words such as "like" to indicate metaphorical speaking.
To be very accurate, a lot of time you have to go back to the original greek, etc. Or know customs and story telling styles that were popular in the age being studied. If I write, "so a guy walks into a bar", today, pretty much everyone knows what is going to follow is a joke and not a real story. If 2000 years from now, the average joe digs that up and reads it, will they know, it's a joke or take it literally, and use it as evidence of a specific occurence?
Only a historian with knowlege of our witticisms can really make that call. And only people who are interested in the true translation, will really catch word of his findings.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Where do you think those metaphors came from? People used to think that the Earth was flat and had actual corners. In the Bible, "The four corners of the earth" wasn't seen as a metaphor after everyone realized the Earth wasn't flat.
- swrlyhrly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Honest question, but what passages where those people back in the day (way back in the day) referring too when they called all people that said the earth was round blasphemers and the anti-christ and then tortured and killed many for it? Except for the killing part, they did this to the guy that invented the spy glass and discovered the earth was actually round.
Excuse my extreme ignorance with names and crappy english, its f'n late and i cant think straight.- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Back in the day, meaning the dark ages? Well, long story short, there's a reason they called it the dark ages. And actually gallileo was on house arrest, he wasn't killed. However the inquisition, and dark ages, were the height of catholic oppression in europe. Also the height of stupidity.
- thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So anyone who uses the phrase "to the ends of the earth" believes the world is flat? OK.
- dancerobots, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7You must be speaking of the Rick James version of the bible.
- IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Exactly it doesn't, in fact most early Christian authors believed the Earth was round, except for a few exceptions such as Lactantius. By the way, I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in Jesus, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8No, I really can't let this slide by.... What are you talking about? What leads you to beleive that "in fact most early Christian authors believed the Earth was round, except for a few exceptions". Please point to early christian writings that state this. Early christians are like 99.9% of humans up to Nicolaus Copernicus who thought the world was flat.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You are 100% wrong. The early Greeks had deduced that the Earth was a sphere, but these writings were castigated by the Church and burned.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not just the greeks, but the egyptians before them, and the romans after them.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above ‘the circle of the earth’ (the Hebrew word for ‘circle’ can also mean a ‘sphere’). Also, Luke 17:34–36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field—an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.
- hplasm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Keep repeating that to yourself. Nobody else is still listening.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Since brokenasshat likes to cut and past the same dame lies so much, I figured I should do the same. The difference, I'll be using the truth instead. Here we go. My rebuttal to brokencrystal (god, that is such an emo name).
Let me get this straight. The best you can do is quote some asinine crap about the Hebrew word for circle (chuwg) being interchangeable with the word for sphere or ball (duwr)? Blatantly INCORRECT:
CHUWG: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329 (used int Isa 40:22)
DUWR: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754 (used in Isa 22:18)
Now, on to the quote about jeebus's coming.
Luke 17:34: I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
You conveniently left off Luke 17:31:
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
Juxtaposing Luke 17:31 and Luke 17:34, it seems more like the J-man is saying to be alert because this stuff can happen at anytime, day or night. One could even go so far to say that this is a 24+ hour event that will take all day and all night. Either way, no where in the entire context of Luke 17:31-37 does it read as if, nor could it be construed as, these events were happening simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. To paraphrase: "In that day some ***** will happen and in that night the ***** will continue to happen."
Get that weak ***** outta here. - gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm not sure why he got dugg down. He just posted a bit of scripture as an argument to the bit of scripture that was posted that is supposed to prove they thought the world was flat. Double standard? At least he gave some reasoning and didn't just post the scripture with no explanation.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He has posted the same garbage at least 5 times while ignoring corrections to his post. He is brokencrystal a right wing ultrareligious Creationist anti-science nut. He lies to make his point. Be very careful when you read his postings.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -14/+26Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above ‘the circle of the earth’ (the Hebrew word for ‘circle’ can also mean a ‘sphere’). Also, Luke 17:34–36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field—an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time. Also, corners or edges of the earth can refer to shores, cliffs, or other borders of the land. Land or dirt can be called Earth.
- hplasm, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Keep repeating that to yourself. Nobody else is still listening.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3The same question was repeated, so the answer had to be repeated...
- SuperDominO83, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4So people only listen when bible verses are taken out of context to prove a claim that it isn't making? That's very convenient.
- yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, hplasm, excellent rebuttal - covering your ears and screaming, "Lalalala I'm not listening!" when there is evidence that contradicts your emotional bias. And you claim Christians are the ignorant, hypocritical ones.
Ridiculous that SuperDomin083 is dugg down simply because he's defending Christianity, no matter how ridiculous your remark is. Also, people digg down brokencrystal simply because he's a Christian as well.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Since brokenasshat likes to cut and past the same dame lies so much, I figured I should do the same. The difference, I'll be using the truth instead. Here we go. My rebuttal to brokencrystal (god, that is such an emo name).
Let me get this straight. The best you can do is quote some asinine crap about the Hebrew word for circle (chuwg) being interchangeable with the word for sphere or ball (duwr)? Blatantly INCORRECT:
CHUWG: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329 (used int Isa 40:22)
DUWR: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01754 (used in Isa 22:18)
Now, on to the quote about jeebus's coming.
Luke 17:34: I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
You conveniently left off Luke 17:31:
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
Juxtaposing Luke 17:31 and Luke 17:34, it seems more like the J-man is saying to be alert because this stuff can happen at anytime, day or night. One could even go so far to say that this is a 24+ hour event that will take all day and all night. Either way, no where in the entire context of Luke 17:31-37 does it read as if, nor could it be construed as, these events were happening simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. To paraphrase: "In that day some ***** will happen and in that night the ***** will continue to happen."
Get that weak ***** outta here.
- hplasm, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Keep repeating that to yourself. Nobody else is still listening.
- don1one, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9The Bible actually mentions the world being round in one passage of the old testament. I'll look it up tonight, but it surprised me when I read it.
I think Evangelicals are their own religion. Even the Pope John admitted to evolution. But I see very little of the followings of Christ in Evangelical Christians.- deathsquadx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"But I see very little of the followings of Christ in Evangelical Christians"
haha, I don't think you've actually met a christian then.- Kestrel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I wish I'd never met a damn christian. The Romans had the right idea about christians... take them out to lunch.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wait. I thought the romans invented Christianity for subversion purposes. If that's true, then why did they kill so many of them... and more importantly, why do you applaud them for it.
- deathsquadx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"But I see very little of the followings of Christ in Evangelical Christians"
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11ah nothing like bible verses taken out of context.
- Fastmedic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#flat%20earth
- chrgrose, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
- ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wow its SO literal! You should submit this to digg under "The Bible saya a tree grows out of the earth!!!"
- aphid360, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Trees do grow out of the earth.
- chrgrose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it wasn't literal it has no epistemic meaning. Why do you think that every description of the earth is always wrong? You think that it was only in their dreams and poetic metaphors that they described the earth like this? There is every reason to think that they actually thought this way and every one of your "but its not to be taken literally!" arguments are ad hoc nonsense.
- ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wow its SO literal! You should submit this to digg under "The Bible saya a tree grows out of the earth!!!"
- chix0r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4All of your interpretations only give base to the fact that religion is *****. There are 1000000 different ways to interpret the writings, but one thing is certain, no one knows which interpretation is correct. You could all be wrong and going to hell.
"Thank god I'm atheist"
- DukeMojo, on 10/10/2007, -31/+67Isaiah 11:12
- Gadren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+139Sadly, this isn't even about the Bible here... at least then there would be an excuse for this hideous perversion of the human mind. This is pure ignorance and arrogance (note that she doesn't even care about whether or not the earth is flat!).
- SirNoobius, on 10/10/2007, -4/+34typical walmart person
- Jeeum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wal-Mullet FTL
- queenstarsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1no. people who shop at wal*mart are busy, but they're generally not too busy to remember what they learned in grade school.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26I don't think she even understood the question. This show is a never-ending train wreck.
- joot2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30She SHOULD care that Earth is round -- NASA has used that fact to put satellites in space that help broadcast her dumb ass.
- queenstarsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1oh god that made me sad.
- SirNoobius, on 10/10/2007, -4/+34typical walmart person
- jaredpariah, on 10/10/2007, -12/+112This pretty much says it all for the state of American public education system.
- Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The earth sun France thing was wierd.
- finnzz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3The video you are referring to was a spoof you tard
- makis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3sackings we in europe have the pope... we don't need someone on TV telling us that the only good words are God's' words, only to gain more money.Thanks god, we can recognize our countries on a map...
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I don't think so. I went to school in the US and I am not retarded. I think my children learned that the Earth was round before they even started school. I still can't believe how dumb some people are. This is such ignorance. How could you live like this? I don't get it. You cannot blame this on US schools. You cannot blame this on religion. This is ignorance in its purist form... I can't even express it in words... We should have mandatory schooling for people like this. It doesn't even have to be a GED level education. A fourth grade education would be better than this woman has.
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"I went to school in the US and I am not retarded."
I've been following your comments and I disagree. Seriously. - imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5After reading your posts for months, I disagree.
You are all that is wrong with education in the US. You don't understand science, you lie, use logical fallacies, are ignorant about many issues you attack (such as Evolution) and claim that you believe in Creationism because of 'science' and not religion...that by itself is a lie.
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"I went to school in the US and I am not retarded."
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0you forgot the words "inner city"
- goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Its because some people dont even have maps, let alone globes. ;)
- mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and such as like
- ZMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhlERjW0bhw&mode=related&search
Wow that's pretty stupid
- Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33World ain't flat, it's cubed stupid.
- cankillar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16http://www.timecube.com/
- andregriffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I've met the timecube guy. Bat. *****. Crazy.
- Pyrogen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So have I. I got to ask him to leave the Big Lots on Central when it was still around. He was frightening customers.
- Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Anyone who writes in POINT 40 text is freaking insane. "Word God is Bad Math" is bad grammer.
- LaueOfficer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4He was trying to appeal to a more ghetto audience and forgot some exclamation mark. "Word! God is Bad Math!"
- andregriffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I've met the timecube guy. Bat. *****. Crazy.
- svejoh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Actually, I'd say that it's stupid^3.
- unbreakable, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hi Steve! Welcome to Digg...
- SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, that's Bizarro world. This is Earth, remember? :P
- cankillar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16http://www.timecube.com/
- mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+183She states that she doesn't have time to think about whether the Earth is flat or not because she has to put food on the table, but from the looks of it, that's a problem she seems to have pretty much locked up.
- anonatron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Maybe that is the problem, no matter how much extra food she makes, there is never enough for her kid. More food = the need for more money = no time to think logically. Q.E.D.
- Memitim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yeah, the food never actually makes it to the table; that's the problem.
- pigsbladder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3She'd goto the ends of the earth for food.... wait a second!
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It was just a simple misunderstanding. By Earth she meant herself. And by flat she meant obese.
- Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4I want to see Marguerite Perrin (God Warrior) guest star.
No, wait wait, Marguerite and Rosie O'doneel together.... with Marg slicing her open with a steak knife.
(i am so sick) - seks03, on 10/10/2007, -2/+50dumb as a box of rocks
- JimXugle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27I would like to request that you retract your statement and apologize to the box and it's associates, the rocks.
- DCGaymer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Seks03 is a rock hater. RADL (that's the Rock Anti-defamation league) will be contacting you shortly.
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5He should apologize to Jesse Rockson, emperor of all rocks
- SuperDominO83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.explodingdog.com/julyfive/boxrocks.html
- Stanslikewh0a, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who puts rocks in a box anyways!?
- thewhits, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24Jeez, it's like it's too hard for her to think past just basic necessities. It's a wonder she can do anything at all. And take you kid to the public library, and sit him in front of lots of books that aren't the bible. It's just a book too.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14People like her probably don't believe in books.
- Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A living organism that's only concerned with its immediate needs and does not have abstract thoughts has the mental skills of a reptile.
- JimXugle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
- msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And hers are obviously met. She could stand to lose about 60 lbs, I don't think meeting basic needs is that big of a worry for a talk show host. She's probably not a millionaire, but she's making more than me, and I have time for abstract thought.
- JimXugle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
- monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+92Turns out Rosie wasn't so bad after all.
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Nah, Rosie is still worse. I'd rather listen to the occasional quiet idiot than have to hear about her beached whale ass bitching nonstop and screaming at the top of her lungs.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Source... I do not believe Rosie is a mammal... (Yes that includes human)
- IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You'd watch The View either way?
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Nah, Rosie is still worse. I'd rather listen to the occasional quiet idiot than have to hear about her beached whale ass bitching nonstop and screaming at the top of her lungs.
- Idura, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9The world is flat, here is a link to prove it.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4LOL! Let's round up the flat earth society and shoot them into orbit.
- TheRealDj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Seriously, most brilliantly designed website ever....atleast for 1998
- Xplorer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Try 1993
- Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wait - was this a joke? It read like one, but if its a joke its a bit wordy.. hmm
- 0megaMagus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Sadly this is not a joke
- mcfarnsberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It is a joke, their evidence section used to have photoshoped pictures of the earth that made it look like a square, claiming that these were the original pictures before the government doctored them to make them look round.
- 1town, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Jesus Christ, how the ***** do you make text on buttons that ugly? Whoever designed this site got mad skills when it comes to ***** on the internet, yo.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -10/+36I never thought I would say this... I miss Rosie
- max1574, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I never thought I would question this... You watch The View?!?!??
- Idura, on 10/10/2007, -32/+4As a member of the flat earth society I'd like to tell you all to ***** off.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
READ THE FACTS ON THIS PAGE THEN DIGG ME DOWN IF THEY ARE WRONG *****.- marshmallowsoup, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9homophobia is not cool
- hlcno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5haha i'm a believer now!!
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4They are wrong. I'm digging you down.
- vitcvitc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ok, I know a lot of people are just plain stupid, but you, yes, you and your group just plain take the cake! Scary scary thought.
- shaelen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Dig you down if they are wrong *****? That is a strange request to make.
- Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5But its a joke page isnt it??? IT is though! Isnt it? Seriously, i need to know!
- MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've heard of it before, and if I remember correctly, the conclusion everyone came to is yes, it is a joke.
- Fluffiness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2On one page it says something like "through callous disregard for our members safety we strive to spread the news" (very rough quote). It's a joke.
- MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've heard of it before, and if I remember correctly, the conclusion everyone came to is yes, it is a joke.
- teethman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dugg way up.
- Achaean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Go get an education, dumbass.
- Fantom05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I read your "facts." You guys kind of forget about gravity.
Therefore, gravity makes you dugg down. Get it?! - ZMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That website is a piece of *****, even for a joke. Dugg down.
- funkyshepherd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+77This woman has a CHILD.
- lewscroo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4When are we going to institute mandatory IQ tests on people to prevent these children? Abortions for everyone without at least a GED!
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3How about, people without a GED are not allowed to reproduce or mandatory birth prevention tools such as birth control? This would be much better than murdering children because their parents were uneducated.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I see what you did there. Abortion is not murder. Jesus Fcuking Christ, are you're one of those Betty Bowers types eh?
http://www.bettybowers.com/
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I see what you did there. Abortion is not murder. Jesus Fcuking Christ, are you're one of those Betty Bowers types eh?
- arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dude, that's like some kind of wicked perversion of Natural Selection.
- obfuscated7ruth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0when was the last time natural science applied to humans.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, its more like Intellectual Selection - there are many means of selection, of which Natural Selection is just one. All contribute towards the evolutionary process in their own way.
- brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3How about, people without a GED are not allowed to reproduce or mandatory birth prevention tools such as birth control? This would be much better than murdering children because their parents were uneducated.
- Memitim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8That's no surprise. Hell, there are guys who ***** farm animals, microwaved fruit, and corpses. If a dick will fit comfortably in it, there is a dude somewhere who will insert.
- lewscroo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4When are we going to institute mandatory IQ tests on people to prevent these children? Abortions for everyone without at least a GED!
- FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+57OH MY ***** GOD........You have got to be ***** me.
She's responsible for kids? time to start the debate about giving people licenses to procreate.- anonatron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The really sad part is that she is going to raise a brood of children that are just as dumb as she is.
- shmittay84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Idiocracy?
- Midvicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6License to procreate. It's so Orwellian and I hate the concept. Then I see ***** like this waste of a lot of space and the concept begins to actually make sense.... it's scary, sad and pathetic. I think that's why they let whales like her on television, to make the average American look stupid as sin.
- msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, it's to make the American public feel good about themselves. "Oh look, the talk show host is a blubbering retard, even I know the world is spherical". And thus, a moderately stupid person thinks they are smart.
- anonatron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The really sad part is that she is going to raise a brood of children that are just as dumb as she is.
- synthox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+89I can say one thing with certainty, her stomach is not flat.
- hplasm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12The Earth is flat wherever she sits on it. Temporarily..
- Idura, on 10/10/2007, -31/+2Why a Flat Earth?
Ever since the official signing of the Flat Earth Society's charter, one of our most difficult goals was to understand the mindset of those we were trying to save. The complexities of Efimovich's theory, that theory's convoluted nature and dependence on flawed logic and the omission of obstructions make it nearly impossible to understand at all, let alone understand why anyone would believe such dribble.
Although we have, through the years, made significant progress towards understanding the viewpoint of Efimovich's followers, we still recognize the holes in the intricate web Efimovich wove. Ours is the truth, the truth of the world's flatness, and ours is also the burden of proof. We are the minority, the followers of lies being the majority, and we gladly accept our burden, if in the end that acceptance means ridding the world of the foul half-truths spread by Grigori Efimovich and his brood of vipers. We present the following five arguments, each completely logical and to some degree building off of the arguments before it. We hope that, after carefully considering what we say here, you will look a with a little less ridicule on the Flat Earth Society and its members.
Argument One - Experimental confirmation of the Earth's rigidity in space
1) The ether factor
In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.
In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.
Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.
But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.
