Kylie's Pluto Challenge

[aachen_hexagon]

Is there something I can help you with, aachen?

No, my apologies for the harshness of my tone. It's frustrating to see someone so denigrative of science who seems to really want to sound like he's science savvy but really is just into Hebrew gematria.

I understand that your devotion to the Bible is paramount and it requires an unbending obiescence in order to please God in your view. But maybe if you weren't so unceasingly insulting to science you really don't seem to understand it wouldn't seem so frustrating.

Don't get me wrong: I'm glad you have your faith and I can even understand some of the cool arabesques the brain is capable of constructing around the importance of numbers etc. But you don't seem capable of learning from others, which I find fascinating. I see your posts as a brand of egotism in which only your unique and rather limited (perhaps not fully sui generis) interpretations of your faith are the only things that have any value or merit or reality.

But that's kind of the essence of a "relationship with God" isn't it? It's built in equal measure between what you are told by some religious figure you respect and your own "understanding" (limited as it may be) of the ineffible. But in order for it to be real it has to have the patina of incontrovertible truth, even if one dare not even scratch it.

Don't allow any outside thoughts to be accepted lest it crack the patina.

What I guess I don't understand is why put out there "challenges" to others to think through hypotheticals if even basic conversations with you seem to ultimately devolve down to you denying that anyone has said anything at all?

You seem to want challenges just so you can post a link about how you've defeated this thought already before (even though most of the time you haven't, you only decreed yourself to have won the battle).

So you come back around to Pluto time after time after time after time. It never changes and your point never gets any more nuanced or even acknowledging that others have even tried to explain it to you time and again.

But everyone who tried to tell you since 2006 that Pluto's planetary status was just a "definitional" thing was all for naught because all along it was more important to have the number 9 show up rather than come to any deeper understanding of the physical universe.

It's like the astronomers could have, all along, just said "9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9" (note that's 9 times) and all would be OK. Pluto is no more important in that calculus than a fly in Kansas. It could be Ceres, it could be any KBO, just anything that gets us back to the number 9.

I understand that now. It really helps make sense of the why this whole thing keeps coming up. It doesn't make your indictment of science any more reasonable (in fact it is now less reasonable since you seem to want science to comport to some Hebrew Gematria rather than do its job as accurately as possible to provide the most information about the real world as it can. It just has to get to the number 9.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand that now. It really helps make sense of the why this whole thing keeps coming up.

I gave your post a LIKE, aachen, because I feel you are being up front and honest with me.

I also feel your frustration in your reply, which I'm sorry is there.

I'll tell you what I'll do:

If you'll just please read Galatians 3:26 (KJB, of course) for me, and let me know you read it (I'll trust you), I promise I won't say ONE NEGATIVE THING about science until after Christmas.

How's that?

 

[Kylie]

Of course not.

I interpret the newspaper literally, but I don't believe every part is intended to be interpreted literally, which speaks of sunrise and sunset, moonlight, and so on.

Just as the Bible does.

So how do you tell the difference? How do you tell if a particular passage in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, or is meant to be taken metaphorically?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you tell the difference? How do you tell if a particular passage in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, or is meant to be taken metaphorically?

Same as the newspaper.

If it makes sense, seek no other sense.

Newspaper:

Cars collide on Marine Drive in Dededo.

Literal or metaphorical?

Newspaper:

Sunrise at 6:37 am
Sunset at 5:57 pm

Literal or metaphorical?

 

[Kylie]

AV, you might find this enlightening regarding the "IAC agenda" in reclassifying Pluto. In short, they wanted to create a consistent and uncomplicated description of the solar system. Ep. 1: Pluto’s Planetary Identity Crisis | Astronomy Cast

 

[Kylie]

Same as the newspaper.

If it makes sense, seek no other sense.

Newspaper:

Cars collide on Marine Drive in Dededo.

Literal or metaphorical?

Newspaper:

Sunrise at 6:37 am
Sunset at 5:57 pm

Literal or metaphorical?

In Ezekiel chapter 4, when God tells him to eat bread that is cooked over human poop, is that literal or metaphorical?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you might find this enlightening regarding the "IAC agenda" in reclassifying Pluto. In short, they wanted to create a consistent and uncomplicated description of the solar system.

Thank you.

If their arguments are so convincing though, why is it they voted the way they did?

Were they afraid the planetary astronomers would vote against them?

 

[AV1611VET]

In Ezekiel chapter 4, when God tells him to eat bread that is cooked over human poop, is that literal or metaphorical?

That is literal.

But Ezekiel was to bake with dung, not eat dung.

 

[Kylie]

Thank you.

If their arguments are so convincing though, why is it they voted the way they did?

Were they afraid the planetary astronomers would vote against them?

Why do you always think there is some sinister motive? Must you see conspiracies everywhere?

 

[MissRowy]

AV I just read Galatians 3:26 again, but I have to say that Philippians 2:14 is a nicer verse IMO. And are you actually going to keep your promise and be nice to these guys until after Christmas?

 

[Kylie]

That is literal.

But Ezekiel was to bake with dung, not eat dung.

I'm sorry, where did I say God told him to EAT the poop? I clearly said that God told him "to eat bread that is cooked over human poop." If I cook some meat over burning logs, I am not eating burning logs, am I?

And so you actually think God told him to burn poop to cook bread. Right.

In Matthew 4, where the devil takes Jesus to the mountain top and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, is that literal or metaphorical?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV I just read Galatians 3:26 again, but I have to say that Philippians 2:14 is a nicer verse IMO.

Yes, it's a good one.

But Galatians 3:26 is about the Gospel and getting saved, and Philippians 2:14 is more toward sanctification -- after one is saved.

In other words, I'm giving aachen the Gospel.

And are you actually going to keep your promise and be nice to these guys until after Christmas?

No.

My challenge was to aachen.

I've only done this three times before.

I promised Cabal (or Thaumaturgy) that if he would just read Galatians 3:26, I would never again mention a certain shuttle disaster again.

He did, and I won't bring it up.

Later, I promised someone else here (can't remember who), that if he would do the same, I would never "warp" the term "higher academia" again.

He did, and I won't do that anymore.

Later, I promised Sayre I would never again mention Thalidomide if she would read that passage.

She refused.

And I have a feeling aachen is refusing also, and frankly, I'm glad.

But if he does, I'll keep my promise to him.

I promise!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sorry, where did I say God told him to EAT the poop? I clearly said that God told him "to eat bread that is cooked over human poop." If I cook some meat over burning logs, I am not eating burning logs, am I?

I'm sorry.

That's my oversight.

And so you actually think God told him to burn poop to cook bread. Right.

Right.

In Matthew 4, where the devil takes Jesus to the mountain top and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, is that literal or metaphorical?

That is literal.

And what is this, a Bible study thread?

 

[aachen_hexagon]

I gave your post a LIKE, aachen, because I feel you are being up front and honest with me.

I also feel your frustration in your reply, which I'm sorry is there.

I'll tell you what I'll do:

If you'll just please read Galatians 3:26 (KJB, of course) for me, and let me know you read it (I'll trust you), I promise I won't say ONE NEGATIVE THING about science until after Christmas.

How's that?

Fair enough. Happy holidays (Merry Christmas).

 

[AV1611VET]

Fair enough.

Does that mean you read it?

Happy holidays (Merry Christmas).

Thank you ... and a Merry Christmas to you too!

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Does that mean you read it?

Well it was pretty long, but I took the time to read it.

(Thanks for sharing the Gospel with me. Doesn't change my mind about the reality of God but it's a nice gesture and something I know you guys are asked to do.)

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, it's a good one.

But Galatians 3:26 is about the Gospel and getting saved, and Philippians 2:14 is more toward sanctification -- after one is saved.

In other words, I'm giving aachen the Gospel.
No.

My challenge was to aachen.

I've only done this three times before.

I promised Cabal (or Thaumaturgy) that if he would just read Galatians 3:26, I would never again mention a certain shuttle disaster again.

He did, and I won't bring it up.

Later, I promised someone else here (can't remember who), that if he would do the same, I would never "warp" the term "higher academia" again.

He did, and I won't do that anymore.

Later, I promised Sayre I would never again mention Thalidomide if she would read that passage.

She refused.

And I have a feeling aachen is refusing also, and frankly, I'm glad.

But if he does, I'll keep my promise to him.

I promise!

Ahhh.... blackmailing people with the gospel. Would make baby Christmas Jesus proud.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yes, it's a good one.

But Galatians 3:26 is about the Gospel and getting saved, and Philippians 2:14 is more toward sanctification -- after one is saved.

In other words, I'm giving aachen the Gospel.
No.

My challenge was to aachen.

I've only done this three times before.

I promised Cabal (or Thaumaturgy) that if he would just read Galatians 3:26, I would never again mention a certain shuttle disaster again.

He did, and I won't bring it up.

Later, I promised someone else here (can't remember who), that if he would do the same, I would never "warp" the term "higher academia" again.

He did, and I won't do that anymore.

Later, I promised Sayre I would never again mention Thalidomide if she would read that passage.

She refused.

And I have a feeling aachen is refusing also, and frankly, I'm glad.

But if he does, I'll keep my promise to him.

I promise!

So are you stopping from doing something that you know you shouldn't do?
Or are you just going to compromise on something you should be doing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well it was pretty long, but I took the time to read it.

???

It was only one verse.

Galatians 3:26

In any event, thank you.

Now I shall keep my promise.

I won't say one negative thing about science until after Christmas.

If I can't find something positive to say, I won't say anything at all.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

???

It was only one verse.

A joke. Sorry. I realize it was only one very short verse.