Certain people can't ever get it right

[mentalgymnast]

The earth is not both round and flat, it is round (though oblate rather than spherical), but you may use the false assumption that it is flat over any distance small enough so that the resulting error is within a level of precision suitable for the activity you are pursuing. This is a straightforward matter of mathematical caculation.

And there you go. Case settled.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Back to the end of thread polemics now, are we? Care to actually address my posts?

Regards,
MG

The way your mind works, probably not.

Regards,
MG

And now we are at the stage where the poster is so desperate for attention, he responds to himself.

Accurately though.

[mentalgymnast]

The way your mind works, probably not.

Regards,
MG

And now we are at the stage where the poster is so desperate for attention, he responds to himself.

Accurately though.

Chap hadn’t shown any inclination to respond fully. But who knows, maybe he will.

Kind of a lame response there, by the way, Lemming.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

And now we are at the stage where the poster is so desperate for attention, he responds to himself.

Accurately though.

Chap hadn’t shown any inclination to respond fully...

Absolutely not true. Quit the bullish*t.

[mentalgymnast]

Chap hadn’t shown any inclination to respond fully...

Absolutely not true. Quit the bullish*t.

Latter part of this thread, this takes on additional meaning:

“Now we discover that the very reason assigned by this prophet [Isaiah], why they would not receive the Messiah, was, because they did not or would not understand; and seeing, they did not perceive; ‘for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, their eyes have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.’ [Matthew 13:15.] But what saith He to His disciples? ‘Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear, for verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.’ [Matthew 13:16–17.]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Absolutely not true. Quit the bullish*t.

Latter part of this thread, this takes on additional meaning:

“Now we discover that the very reason assigned by this prophet [Isaiah], why they would not receive the Messiah, was, because they did not or would not understand; and seeing, they did not perceive; ‘for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, their eyes have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.’ [Matthew 13:15.] But what saith He to His disciples? ‘Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear, for verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.’ [Matthew 13:16–17.]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

Regards,
MG

If I thought you meant that sincerely, I wouldn't respond. But, since you just troll, I say again, quit the bullish*t.

[mentalgymnast]

Latter part of this thread, this takes on additional meaning:



Regards,
MG

If I thought you meant that sincerely, I wouldn't respond.

I do mean it sincerely. It’s interesting that you use the words, “If I thought”. As if what you think matters in this instance.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier.

...it comes back to how your viewfinder is set and the vantage point from which you’re observing.

What would one expect from a secular atheist? Assuming that this is how you would describe yourself.

I can say it again because it applies to most of the folks I’ve been going the rounds with on this thread.

I would refer you to a quote I posted earlier and my comments thereafter. No one has made a meaningful reply.

The earth is round and flat at the same time.This is obvious. That it is round appears indisputable; that it is flat is our common experience, also indisputable. The globe does not supersede the map; the map does not distort the globe.
-Jeanette Winterson

That at least one of you rational secularists thinks that you have everything set correctly with your viewfinder is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.

Lemming, you’re wasting our time by popping in to yell “troll”. The silliness of continuing to do so is becoming rather transparent and obvious. I’m embarrassed for you.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Yup, that's a troll and a time waster.

As I have said a couple of times before - this board became just too tough for LDS apologists who actually advanced substantive propositions that could be discussed on the basis of whether or not they were consistent with real world evidence. They lost hands down, time after time, and gave up and went away to safer environments.

It's as if we had effectively eliminated all the fish from the sea, from whales down to sardines, by hooking up everything that could swim and eating it.

Now all we have left are the jellyfish ...

Clearly. Jellyfish with a 'viewfinder.' lol.

[Gadianton]

MG,

Your responses indicate that you truly are a literalist and have a difficult time even contemplating metaphor and its possible application/implication in a search for truth.

When someone makes the statement "the earth is both flat and round", as Chap points out, there's a technical reason a statement like this could be made. The point is underwhelming for anyone who has taken basic calculus and knows about limits (I know that you have not, of course). But even an underwhelming point is a point, and since that point can be made, there's no reason to assume that suddenly you're waxing metaphorical. I mean, the context of the conversation is the Flat Earth movement, which teaches a literal flat earth, and so why should anybody assume MG, or anybody else for that matter, has suddenly gone Robert Frost when declaring the earth is both round and flat in this context?

If you're waiting on a paycheck, and the party responsible for the check tells you that they will pay you, but yet you receive no money, and in follow-up, the party responsible tells you that they had been speaking metaphorically over the phone about "paying you", and accuses you of being a black-and-white thinker, what then, MG? If we're reading the Book of Isiah, or the context of conversation is literature, then perhaps there are times to back off on technical accuracy. But your ridiculous comments did not come in that kind of context.

And then to say the gospel is both flat and round. Good Lord, will you stop at nothing? That's a mixed metaphor; it's really a useless observation, even if the context were something literary rather than the very literalist Flat Earth movement.

You should feel very ashamed about the quality of your posting in the last 24 hours. And no, I disagree when you write:

It’s interesting to consider the fact that if any one or more of you had testimonies of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that Jesus is the Christ and that God lives, your viewfinder would capture me differently. And what a difference that would make.

There are folks who "have testimonies" but yet, aren't clowns, who would not necessarily capture you as anything but a lunatic, even though they wouldn't call you out for it. There are sharp Mormons out there who have years of experience giving a free pass to the nutcase who gets up on fast Sunday and says stupid crap like "the gospel is both flat and round".

[mentalgymnast]

MG,

Your responses indicate that you truly are a literalist and have a difficult time even contemplating metaphor and its possible application/implication in a search for truth.

When someone makes the statement "the earth is both flat and round", as Chap points out, there's a technical reason a statement like this could be made.

Yes.

The point is underwhelming for anyone who has taken basic calculus and knows about limits (I know that you have not, of course).

No argument.

But even an underwhelming point is a point, and since that point can be made, there's no reason to assume that suddenly you're waxing metaphorical.

Why not? Why am I obligated to attach myself to Chap’s literalist/mathematical solution/representation of the metaphor?

I mean, the context of the conversation is the Flat Earth movement...

Huh? What are you talking about? I’m not talking about this movement.

...which teaches a literal flat earth...

Ok. So? What’s your point?

...and so why should anybody assume MG, or anybody else for that matter, has suddenly gone Robert Frost when declaring the earth is both round and flat in this context?

I’m not in “this context”, but you seem to be.

If you're waiting on a paycheck, and the party responsible for the check tells you that they will pay you, but yet you receive no money, and in follow-up, the party responsible tells you that they had been speaking metaphorically over the phone about "paying you", and accuses you of being a black-and-white thinker, what then, MG?

I’d ask what in the heck this has to do with what I was talking about.

If we're reading the Book of Isiah, or the context of conversation is literature, then perhaps there are times to back off on technical accuracy.

Agreed.

But your ridiculous comments did not come in that kind of context.

Up to this point I don’t think you understand the context. Not from what you’re coming up with here anyway. Go back and read what I’m actually saying instead of making stuff up.

And then to say the gospel is both flat and round. Good Lord, will you stop at nothing?

The gospel is view differently dependent upon the setting of the viewfinder the observer is looking through. I’ve been through this in some detail already. You’re regurgitating what I’ve said into something unrecognizable. I would invite others to go back and read, in context, what my argument entails.

That's a mixed metaphor...

It’s a metaphorical construct that has application/parallel to the way one may view the church/gospel, and its doctrines.

...it's really a useless observation...

I don’t think it is.

...even if the context were something literary rather than the very literalist Flat Earth movement.

I have no idea why you’re bringing in the Flat Earth movement to this discussion. This doesn’t have anything to do with the metaphorical context that I’m working within.

Again, you have misread and misrepresented what I’ve said.

You should feel very ashamed about the quality of your posting in the last 24 hours.

In essence, my posting has been pointing out the fact that you and other secularists are claiming to have viewfinders that have the correct settings which will give you a leg up in your determination of what is true and what is false. I look at your determinations as being the result of an incomplete view of reality. For you to determine the confines and restraints of what can be considered real is rather arrogant and prideful.

And you come across as being such.

There are folks who "have testimonies" but yet, aren't clowns, who would not necessarily capture you as anything but a lunatic...

This plays well to your audience of fellow non-believers in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

...even though they wouldn't call you out for it.

You are placing yourself in the position of an active Latter-day Saint audience? That’s rich. You are a direct threat to the church in the things you say. Others would be able to see YOU for what you are.

There are sharp Mormons out there...

Yes there are.

...who have years of experience giving a free pass to the nutcase who gets up on fast Sunday and says stupid Crap...

I hear you there...

...like "the gospel is both flat and round".

Again, you’re over simplifying what I’ve said earlier in this thread. Creating your own context and then placing me in it. Misrepresenting the points I made.

You’re scamming another poster to create a false narrative which is supposed to nail the opposition to the wall. You failed.

You’re blowing smoke dude.

Regards,
MG