NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[1213]

The fire is torment because the unworthy are put in it, conscious and able to feel pain...

Bible doesn't say anyone is eternally conscious and able to feel pain in hell. Bible says soul and body are destroyed in hell. Why do you think someone who is utterly destroyed would feel anything?

Matthew 10:28 King James Version (KJV)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

You are right in that Matthew only has Jesus taken up a mountain (also Luke 4) not into space, but the point is only in a flat earth could one expect to see all the nations of the earth Of course, it doesn't show the earth IS flat but only that the writers thought it was, and surely they thought it was when

I think that is a pathetic attempt to make people to look wrong, by irrational interpretation. No good reason to expect the kingdoms to be seen directly* even on a flat earth, no matter how tall the mountain would be.

*directly, the way you see objects that are right next to you with you eyes.

[POI]

It is funny how science has become like a religion. I think it is possible that earth is not flat. But in this case it doesn't matter what I believe. The scripture doesn't say earth is flat. It also doesn't say one must be on a high mountain to see all the kingdoms. I don't think there is enough reason to make the interpretation that it means earth is flat.

Your apologetics is failing you, big time. It's mere common sense... It is not logical to see ALL the kingdoms, as some reside on the opposite side of a spherical planet. The author obviously thought the world was flat, and by going high enough, could see them all. This is an epic fail for the Bible, and you know it. But again, nice try. But no one is buying what you are selling.

Those scriptures show, if one has faith, it can be counted for righteousness.

We are finally making some major headway here. You now finally acknowledge that 'righteousness' = 'Jesus-faith.'

I also listed the verse(s) which explains that Jesus cannot be satisfied by ANYTHING else you might do. Hence, the reason 'Jesus paid the price on your behalf.' All you have to do is have faith in him. Remember these verses:

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. ---- (This means nothing else will do, besides Jesus-faith).

If one fears, it is sad

Yes, sad, as the Bible tells the believing reader there will be "nashing of teeth". - Matt. 13

***********************

I noticed you skipped my conclusion. The Bible mentions faith and torment ~100 times each. This means these two topics are propped up by the Bible. It is then logical to surmise that blind faith, coaxed by way of coercion, is the way Bible-thumpers attempt to win converts.

[Difflugia]

That means, if the ocean crust is for example 10 mil thick, as it is claimed to be in some areas, and continental crust is about 30 mil think, the continental crust is about 3 times heavier, because much thicker. For to prevent the surface of the earth to level up, there must be a force that can prevents that. And that force would be the weight difference. In this case 30-10 = 20 mil thick layer of rock, which weights about 8640000 kg/m².

The crust is less dense than the mantle and floating, so in the places where the crust is thickest, it's also deepest. A mountain range works kind of like an iceberg: there's as much below as above. The "levelling" you're apparently talking about is actuallly happening, though probably differently than you're imagining it. Areas that were covered in thick glaciers during the most recent ice age were heavier than they are now because of the ice. Now that the ice has melted, they're experiencing isostatic rebound.

Now that I understand (I think) what you were trying to say, I see the problem with how you're envisioning things. You think that everything, crust and mantle alike, is the same density like the concrete in the hole. It's not. Instead, it's like if someone put chunks of wood into the concrete and let them "level up." After the "levelling up" process, some of the pieces of wood will be higher above the surface of the concrete than others. Where there is more wood above the surface, there will also be more wood below the surface. The crust floating on the mantle is the same way.

To raise that weight one would need 864 MPa force, which probably means nothing to you.

Yes. Math and science are an enigma to me, which is why I'm glad I have you to help me.

Luckily the important question works, even if you don't understand the weight of the matter. So, how do you explain, if there would be such a force, why it is not lifting the much lighter crust? It must be magic.

Because the crust is less dense than the mantle. Or maybe it's magic. I get those confused.

By what I see, the scripture calls the fire the torment.

I guess it's settled. My scriptural and linguistic evidence is no match for what you see.

[POI]

While I'm awaiting the sole Christian responder to this thread, I wonder if Christians have any feedback regarding another part of the OP? (i.e.):

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

[1213]

(This means nothing else will do, besides Jesus-faith).

Only in your imagination.

Yes, sad, as the Bible tells the believing reader there will be "nashing of teeth". - Matt. 13

Yes, it is not nice situation, when one is destroyed. Doesn't mean the feelings lasts forever.

[1213]

...
The crust is less dense than the mantle and floating, so in the places where the crust is thickest, it's also deepest. A mountain range works kind of like an iceberg: there's as much below as above. The "levelling" you're apparently talking about is actuallly happening, though probably differently than you're imagining it. Areas that were covered in thick glaciers during the most recent ice age were heavier than they are now because of the ice. Now that the ice has melted, they're experiencing isostatic rebound.
....

Thanks, that is a nice example. Now, if you believe continents are like that, floating on earths mantle, how do you explain that it is the lighter and less thick oceanic crust that is melting in the convection phenomena, not the thicker mountain crust that goes even deeper towards the hotter core of earth? 'If the mountain crust is like an iceberg, shouldn't its bottom be the first to melt, because it is closer to the extremely hot core of earth?

[POI]

(This means nothing else will do, besides Jesus-faith).

Only in your imagination.

Negative. Romans 3 clearly tells the reader that all will fall short. The only way for redemption is Jesus-faith. I would post the verses again, but you will either twist or ignore them again.

Yes, it is not nice situation, when one is destroyed. Doesn't mean the feelings lasts forever.

Now you admit the Bible does speak about the topic of "torment" in way in which does not mean 'fire' alone. At least we are getting somewhere.... The Bible lists many verses about eternal torment. I sent you a large list. You obviously ignored them, so there is no need to list them again, as you will just do the same again.

The Bible props up both a) blind faith and b) coercion by way of threats of eternal torment. The NT writers were aware that these stories are far-fetched, and in order to win more converts, arguments like Pascal's Wager, and the like, were and still are a necessary ploy to increase the team size.

[TRANSPONDER]

The fire is torment because the unworthy are put in it, conscious and able to feel pain...

Bible doesn't say anyone is eternally conscious and able to feel pain in hell. Bible says soul and body are destroyed in hell. Why do you think someone who is utterly destroyed would feel anything?

Matthew 10:28 King James Version (KJV)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

You are right in that Matthew only has Jesus taken up a mountain (also Luke 4) not into space, but the point is only in a flat earth could one expect to see all the nations of the earth Of course, it doesn't show the earth IS flat but only that the writers thought it was, and surely they thought it was when

I think that is a pathetic attempt to make people to look wrong, by irrational interpretation. No good reason to expect the kingdoms to be seen directly* even on a flat earth, no matter how tall the mountain would be.

*directly, the way you see objects that are right next to you with you eyes.

Ok, I agree. The Bible is of course confused about the afterlife, or at least Christianity is. They have preached an afterlife where those who do not make the cut are tormented eternally. I would agree that the Biblical version wobbles between the Jewish Gehenna where the unsuitable humans are burned like rubbish and cease to exist, and the more Modern Christian belief where the evildoer is tortured eternally and if 'destroyed' gets remade to be destroyed all over again. I can understand that you reject that as UR Christians do. But that is Christian doctrine, so you have invented your own religion.

I'll absolutely opt out of atheist oblivion' as an alternative to anything Christianity has to offer.

Your attempt to get over the nations of the earth by going on the attack merely shows that you have no answer by insisting that it is wrong interpretation. Let me guess, right Interpretation is in having the whole thing metaphorical and it is Satan offering Jesus ownership of the round earth in a poetic simile. The Rule being 'everything in the Bible is literally true unless it looks immoral, wrong or laughable, and then just rewrite it to say something more acceptable.

The way you tried to rewrite the daylight before the sun as some imitation of it just to fill in while God was designing the sun.

Rewriting Slavery as not being lifetime ownership of foreigners with few or no rights by pretending the leniency for Israelite slaves applied to foreign slaves too, and the shameless attempt to plaster over the resurrection contradiction by chopping up Bibletext and reassembling it to suit yourself.

I say again, I treat the Bu ible with more respect than you do, because I take it as what it says, not what I would prefer it to say. It is just unfortunate for you that what it says is often immoral, contradictory of wrong, unless one denies science, reason and even what the Bible says.

Far from me doing a 'pathetic attempt to make people look wrong' you do a splendid effort of making Bible apologetics look very bad.

[Difflugia]

Now, if you believe continents are like that, floating on earths mantle, how do you explain that it is the lighter and less thick oceanic crust that is melting in the convection phenomena, not the thicker mountain crust that goes even deeper towards the hotter core of earth? 'If the mountain crust is like an iceberg, shouldn't its bottom be the first to melt, because it is closer to the extremely hot core of earth?

The explanation, as seems to be the case so far in this discussion, is that you're incorrectly imagining what's going on.

Where there's a subduction zone, the plate being pushed under (the oceanic crust in your example) is continually pushed down so that the leading edge slides along the edge of the plate on top. Most of the melting occurs where that edge plunges beneath the bottom of the plate on top.

Here is an image from an online introduction to geology textbook.



In a nutshell, how you think it does work is wrong and how you think it should work is wrong.

The textbook is called An Introduction to Geology. The image is from Chapter 2, "Plate Tectonics." That chapter answers all of the questions you've been asking and, I suspect, all of them that you might think to ask.

I also recommend Chapter 1, "Understanding Science," in particular, section 1.6, "Science Denial and Evaluating Sources."

[TRANSPONDER]

This is not the first time I have seen tectonic plate movement questions, not to say denied. And the same problem - it is hard to know where ignorance ends and denial starts, which is a basic logical flaw of Creationist apologetics (which is what this is) in that there mere existence of an hypothesis of how mountains form is good enough to totally negate the god - claim. That's without the evidence of geology that supports tectonic plate movement as the cause of volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, mountains, rift valleys and the creation of continents, where YE creationist - geology has nothing but denial.