A Parable about Age

[AV1611VET]

Furthermore, there's nothing in "embedded age" which is consistent with any of God's actions anywhere in the Bible --

Maybe because of this?

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

That would take care of the ex nihilo part -- for the ex materia part, I disagree.

When Jesus multiplied the two fishes to feed the 5000, were they "aged", in your opinion?

How about the water-into-wine at Cana?

(Don't bother to answer, if you've got nothing to say.)

 

[AV1611VET]

AV really isn't peddling anything. He's pointing out a particular view, which is only one of many that reconciles Biblical Faith with science. His Biblical Faith is actually quite sound; how that may relate to science (or not) isn't an "article of Faith" at all, as defined by any sort of unified stance within Christianity. The 2 are separate issues, and for all your own pontifications on this site one might expect you to be intelligent enough to recognize that.

Well-stated, my friend -- thank you!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry but you present a false dichotomy here.

False dichotomy? So the Bible = God?

pretty much the core of literalism; surprised to get one of you guys to finally admit it.

As an atheist why would you pretend to know what Faith in God even is? Why would you feign to understand the relationship between the two?

Because I can say without an ounce of hesitation that I have a deeper understanding of what that means than the likes of you or AV would ever want -- and that just drives you guys buggy... whether through shame or envy, I neither know nor care.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because I can say without an ounce of hesitation that I have a deeper understanding of what that means than the likes of you or AV would ever want --

Oh, my -- now look whose narcissism is showing.

Didn't you tell me you never experienced:

Hebrews 6:4b ... once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 

[Nathan Poe]

Maybe because of this?

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

So, God was a different God after He rested?

That would take care of the ex nihilo part -- for the ex materia part, I disagree.

of course you do.

When Jesus multiplied the two fishes to feed the 5000, were they "aged", in your opinion?

How about the water-into-wine at Cana?

Probably as "aged" as the food Moses had God produce in Exodus 16, or the food Elijah was able to conjure up ex materia in 1 Kings 17, which Elisha did with oil in 2 Kings 4.

In my opinion, I would expect the writers of the Gospels, who sought to portray Jesus as the newest and greatest of Jewish heroes, to not only imitate these previous miracles, but one up-them: Anything Moses, Elijah, and Elisha could do, Jesus could do better.

And lo and behold, according to the stories, that's exactly what he did.

Of course, not being a Jew and not in the habit of paying them much attention, you're probably a little fuzzy on the Elijah and Elisha miracles, so you wouldn't see the pattern there -- but a Jew living around the time the Gospel stories were circulating would've made the connections that you insist on missing in exchange for your own vanities, and gotten the message that you've discarded in exchange for your own malformed interpretations.

Pretty convenient... in my opinion.

(Don't bother to answer, if you've got nothing to say.)

Oh, AV -- you know I wouldn't answer if I had nothing to say... you're projecting.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, my -- now look whose narcissism is showing.

It's not narcissism if I can back it up.

I'll concede your memorization and use of the Bible is handier than most people's, including mine -- but what does it matter when you do nothing with it?

Didn't you tell me you never experienced:

Hebrews 6:4b ... once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

I never expereinced what those writers experienced... because I'm not them.

But not to boast or anything, I have experienced the transcendent in better ways than the ones you pretend to.

I do believe, Av, that someday you will have a divine experience.

Keep looking.

 

[Freodin]

That's because we don't have a working definition of "old".

Whatever "old" entails, is whatever "old" entails.

For example, if "old" means that the atoms that make something up are "loose", then they're loose.

If it means the strong [or weak] nuclear force is weaker than the same force in a new object -- then that's what it means.

If it means they don't bond as well, then they don't bond as well.

And umgekehrt as well; if something (like a tree) is stronger due to stronger nuclear bonding, then an ex nihilo tree with the same chemical strength should suffice for embedded age.

You are talking yourself so close along understanding... and yet you are missing the important part.

"Old" does not entail any of these. "Old" entails just a single thing, one little concept: time has passed.

Anything else, anything you mention here, mentioned in other threads or think to cook up for other challenges.... it is not even the result of time having passed.

It is the result of events that happened in this passing time. (Provided that you gave a correct representation of things, which you did not in the above view of physics.)


And this is your abuse of language, your basic dishonesty: that your claim to "agree" with those who adhere to this definition of "age".

You use the same words, that is all. You fill them with meaning of your own - meaning that goes contrary to the original meaning.

You are indeed a good Christian and a truthful servant of God.

 

[razeontherock]

False dichotomy? So the Bible = God?

I never said that, and your failed paraphrase does nothing but prove yourself to be a liar when you say:

Because I can say without an ounce of hesitation that I have a deeper understanding of what that means

Actually, I would want everyone to understand the subject matter here, of what Biblical Faith is and how that pertains to Faith in God. I won't speak for anyone else, but I simply can't believe AV doesn't agree with me on this most basic tenet of the Christian Faith.

Also, do recognize what your accusations say about you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I never said that,

So it's not a false dichotomy then. Could it be a conflation? You and AV know the Bible, so you think that means you know God?

and your failed paraphrase does nothing but prove yourself to be a liar when you say:

So, do you think my understanding of the divine is inferior to yours because I don't follow a literal Bible?

No? Then my statement still stands.

Actually, I would want everyone to understand the subject matter here, of what Biblical Faith is and how that pertains to Faith in God.

Given that one does not equal the other, and that it would be false to assume that one necessarily causes the other, let's see how one pertains to the other, then...

I won't speak for anyone else, but I simply can't believe AV doesn't agree with me on this most basic tenet of the Christian Faith.

And what is this most basic tenet? One pertains to the other... how?

Humor us.

Also, do recognize what your accusations say about you.

That I'm getting increasingly frustrated with pious frauds, peddlers of self-serving pseudotheological nonsense, and various other salesmen of snakeoil "salvation" as I get older, and see no further reason (beyond forum rules) to treat them with kid gloves.

 

[Belk]

That's because we don't have a working definition of "old".

Whatever "old" entails, is whatever "old" entails.

For example, if "old" means that the atoms that make something up are "loose", then they're loose.

If it means the strong [or weak] nuclear force is weaker than the same force in a new object -- then that's what it means.

If it means they don't bond as well, then they don't bond as well.

And umgekehrt as well; if something (like a tree) is stronger due to stronger nuclear bonding, then an ex nihilo tree with the same chemical strength should suffice for embedded age.

Sure we do. "Having been in existence for a long period of time". You see, the way scientists measure the age of something is to determine the history of it's component parts. Ergo when we measure the age of a rock we are measuring it's history by determining the radioactive ratio's between components.

This embedded age thing seems pretty important to you AV. Why is that? Maybe you should explain the evidence by which you came to the conclusion age is "embedded" in things?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Old" entails just a single thing, one little concept: time has passed.

Nope -- more than that.

From reference.com:

1. Far advanced in the years of one's or its life.
2. Of or pertaining to the latter part of the life or term of existence of a person or thing.
3. As if or appearing to be far advanced in years.
4. Having lived or existed for a specified time.
5. Having lived or existed as specified with relation to younger or newer persons or things.

I'm glad you didn't write the dictionary.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nope -- more than that.

From reference.com:

1. Far advanced in the years of one's or its life.
2. Of or pertaining to the latter part of the life or term of existence of a person or thing.
3. As if or appearing to be far advanced in years.
4. Having lived or existed for a specified time.
5. Having lived or existed as specified with relation to younger or newer persons or things.

I'm glad you didn't write the dictionary.

We're more glad you didn't -- all definitions subject to change as a matter of personal convenience.

So, embedded age covers definitions 1 and 2 by being 3 (note the use of the term " As if or appearing to be") and ignoring 4 and 5?

 

[Freodin]

Nope -- more than that.

From reference.com:

1. Far advanced in the years of one's or its life.
2. Of or pertaining to the latter part of the life or term of existence of a person or thing.
3. As if or appearing to be far advanced in years.
4. Having lived or existed for a specified time.
5. Having lived or existed as specified with relation to younger or newer persons or things.

I'm glad you didn't write the dictionary.

"Far advanced in the years".... how do years advance? That's right: time is passing!
"The latter part of the life".... how do you get from "earlier" to "later"? That's right: time is passing!
"Having lived a specified time."... passing time!
"in relation to a younger".... reference back to "younger" and "older" and you will get to... time passing!

And as to the last (the third): I would like to see an example for that.

So, embedded age covers definitions 1 and 2 by being 3 (note the use of the term " As if or appearing to be") and ignoring 4 and 5?

Definition 1 and 2 are showing the passing of time as well... they do not cover embedded age at all.

 

[razeontherock]

So it's not a false dichotomy then. Could it be a conflation? You and AV know the Bible, so you think that means you know God?

And here you mistake intellectual knowledge and/or assent with Faith. All you do in your efforts to discuss Faith is prove you don't even know what it is. You are perfectly consistent with that in every instance I've seen, I'll give you that much.

And what is this most basic tenet? One pertains to the other... how?

Humor us.

I'm sorry, I'd assumed you'd heard of the Great Commission. Usually I'm pretty good at avoiding assumptions, but I did think that much wasn't news to you.

That I'm getting increasingly frustrated with pious frauds, peddlers of self-serving pseudotheological nonsense, and various other salesmen of snakeoil "salvation" as I get older, and see no further reason (beyond forum rules) to treat them with kid gloves.

No; what your habit of accusing the brethren says about you, is that you are in league with the accuser of the brethren, when you engage in that activity. Such a simple concept as to almost be a tautology

 

[sandwiches]

Actually I never said anything to that effect, but "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" certainly comes into play here, now that you mention it. If you look at what I snipped of the quote when I responded to what you're asking about here, you'll see exactly what I was saying.

So, they weren't "real" Christians, then?

 

[Freodin]

I'm sorry, I'd assumed you'd heard of the Great Commission. Usually I'm pretty good at avoiding assumptions, but I did think that much wasn't news to you.

You mean the part of the great commission where you are called to tell people that they don't understand and nothing else?

No, sorry, must have missed this one.

 

[sandwiches]

Sorry but you present a false dichotomy here. As an atheist why would you pretend to know what Faith in God even is? Why would you feign to understand the relationship between the two?

Cue Spock: highly illogical.

What he's pointing out is that "biblical faith" and "faith is god" are not necessarily the same thing, not that they can't be the same thing. I'm not sure if you're feigning confusion, as it's very clear what he said and I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get his point.

 

[razeontherock]

So, they weren't "real" Christians, then?

Nice try, seriously. There is no way to employ the scientific concept of "control" to the subject of whether prayers might be in accordance with the Father's will, (the first Scriptural criteria that I see as being paramount to such a study) or fervent, effectual and done by a righteous person. (3 other criteria clearly given in Scripture)

Now let's consider the design of a research study that could, at least potentially, yield effective results: (and btw yes I do pick apart many studies, especially in medical related fitness, to expose basic flaws resulting in their conclusions being meaningless)

1) Include only those petitions that are known to be in accord with the will of the Father, but also have a control group that violates this precept;

2) Create a subset of each category above and the second list of criterion, that the prayer be fervent, "effectual" (a most interesting concept!) and done by righteous people, and also have a control group that violates this.

And what you have is 5,000 + years of Judeo-Christian heritage, doing exactly that.

And greatly to the chagrin of both atheists and religionists who so love to proclaim how divided Christianity is, you see seamless unity in the results of this "research study," and one way of expressing those with the positive results is "the Body of Christ." Which, you'll note, is not exactly something science can study.

(Boy I never thought this thread would go in that direction, thanks for pressing me on this!)

 

[razeontherock]

What he's pointing out is that "biblical faith" and "faith is god" are not necessarily the same thing, not that they can't be the same thing. I'm not sure if you're feigning confusion, as it's very clear what he said and I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get his point.

I'm not sure how many little blue arrows by the quote one would have to click on to see the beginning of this particular off-topic de-rail, but you would see it starts with poe putting words in people's mouths, which is never a way to arrive at any valid point.

 

[Split Rock]

You mean the part of the great commission where you are called to tell people that they don't understand and nothing else?

No, sorry, must have missed this one.

Actually I think it is the part where you promote creationism to make Christianity look foolish. You get lots of converts by telling people things like, "reality can take a hike," or "science can take a hike," or "evolution is a fairytale for adults," or "there's no evidence for the flood cause God cleaned it all up," or "the more foolish you make my position look, the more I believe it."