My Igneous Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

You left an important qualifier out.

Nothing important about it. If you're referring to "deep," I found it redundant, as I've never known you to believe in anything "deep."

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you differentiate between "faith" and "being wrong"?

Faith pleases God.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Being wrong displeases not only God, but others, including me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Faith pleases God.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Being wrong displeases not only God, but others, including me.

So as long as you're pleased, you're right?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're referring to "deep," I found it redundant,

I'm sure you're kidding.

You're telling me that in a conversation with someone who believes the earth has only gone around the sun 6018 times, "deep time" is a redundant term?

 

[AV1611VET]

So as long as you're pleased, you're right?

You almost always* remind me of Statler & Waldorf.

* There's an oxymoron for you.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I accuse them of denying the totality of reality -- that is, not willing to see the whole picture.

The Sadducees, for example, neither believed in a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits.

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

That's why they were sad, you see.

(You'll get that in a minute.)

Well, you're still trying to justify your denial with examples of how good it makes you feel. I'm afraid the parallels with other forms of denial are almost comical. And you still fail to acknowledge that using the excuse of your faith to justify a denial of reality has anything wrong with it. Put it this way, if you weren't using faith would you be using something else to deny reality? From the extremes you are going to on this forum it would seem likely. Therefore we may reasonably ask if this is not at least a fairly harmless way of you dealing with this issue? Well, yes, it is of course, reasonably harmless given the apparent alternatives that might substitute for it. But one can't help feeling that it is a pity that the more reasonable alternatives, including a faith not used to justify denying reality but one that embraces it, are not available to you. That is a great shame but clearly beyond the scope of most people here to try and address as it requires more than simple reasoning and rational argument to deal with.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You almost always* remind me of Statler & Waldorf.

* There's an oxymoron for you.

That's a deflection for you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm sure you're kidding.

You're telling me that in a conversation with someone who believes the earth has only gone around the sun 6018 times, "deep time" is a redundant term?

No -- claiming you don't believe in "deep" time is redundant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you're still trying to justify your denial with examples of how good it makes you feel.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I'm afraid the parallels with other forms of denial are almost comical.

At least I can get you laughing.

And you still fail to acknowledge that using the excuse of your faith to justify a denial of reality has anything wrong with it.

I find it interesting -- and always have -- that agreeing with scientists' conclusions (the age of the earth for example) -- isn't good enough.

One has to agree with how scientists arrived at that conclusion as well, don't they?

This everything-or-nothing attitude doesn't cut it with me.

Put it this way, if you weren't using faith would you be using something else to deny reality?

I thought I already answered NO (or I HOPE NOT) to that?

From the extremes you are going to on this forum it would seem likely.

If walking by faith is an "extreme" to you, is walking by sight an "extreme" to you as well?

Therefore we may reasonably ask if this is not at least a fairly harmless way of you dealing with this issue?

I hope so.

I hope I don't come across as a militant crusader for the cause.

Well, yes, it is of course, reasonably harmless given the apparent alternatives that might substitute for it.

Thank you.

But one can't help feeling that it is a pity that the more reasonable alternatives, including a faith not used to justify denying reality but one that embraces it, are not available to you.

I've seen what a faith that "embraces [mundane] reality" does to even basic doctrine -- and want no part of it.

That is a great shame but clearly beyond the scope of most people here to try and address as it requires more than simple reasoning and rational argument to deal with.

Correct.

Instead of the worldly logical, try the divinely theological to get the whole picture.

But, just as the Bible says, it can't be done by unbelievers; and many are QED of that very truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a deflection for you.

Yup.

Right up to the balcony, where it comes from.

(When you posted under your former name, didn't I once accuse you of being a heckler from the peanut gallery? "Statler & Waldorf" is easier on the psyche.)

 

[AV1611VET]

No -- claiming you don't believe in "deep" time is redundant.

Well I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that.

 

[D2wing]

In this type of discussion it is helpful to keep in mind there are two sides to any science vs religion argument and neither side knows the answer.
God made the Earth in a supernatural way. God is not constrained by time as he invented it and lives outside it. Rocks are as old as he made them, we don't know the exact time or age. He could have made things old to begin with or he could have compressed time.
I do not think science disagrees with Christianity. But there is a faction of science that is determined to prove there is no God so results are skewed and not looked at with an open mind but with assumptions based on other assumptions.
True science should benefit us all instead of being used to prove the unprovable. The discussion is interesting. Facts are great but they are not proof of God or no God.

 

[AV1611VET]

In this type of discussion it is helpful to keep in mind there are two sides to any science vs religion argument and neither side knows the answer.
God made the Earth in a supernatural way. God is not constrained by time as he invented it and lives outside it. Rocks are as old as he made them, we don't know the exact time or age. He could have made things old to begin with or he could have compressed time.
I do not think science disagrees with Christianity. But there is a faction of science that is determined to prove there is no God so results are skewed and not looked at with an open mind but with assumptions based on other assumptions.
True science should benefit us all instead of being used to prove the unprovable. The discussion is interesting. Facts are great but they are not proof of God or no God.

Nice!

 

[Oafman]

I find it interesting -- and always have -- that agreeing with scientists' conclusions (the age of the earth for example) -- isn't good enough.

One has to agree with how scientists arrived at that conclusion as well, don't they?

This everything-or-nothing attitude doesn't cut it with me.

People have dedicated their lives to working this stuff out, building on the work of others who dedicated their lives to the same goal. Decades and centuries of meticulous observation, experimenting, comparing, considering, sharing, discussing and often arguing over what conclusions can be drawn.

So no, it is not sufficient for you to just come along and pluck a number or a result out of thin air, that just happens to agree with these hard-won conclusions, and say 'hey look, we agree. We're both right!'.

 

[AV1611VET]

People have dedicated their lives to working this stuff out, building on the work of others who dedicated their lives to the same goal. Decades and centuries of meticulous observation, experimenting, comparing, considering, sharing, discussing and often arguing over what conclusions can be drawn.

Yes -- and some of them are gifted of God.

So no, it is not sufficient for you to just come along and pluck a number or a result out of thin air, that just happens to agree with these hard-won conclusions, and say 'hey look, we agree. We're both right!'.

I won't stand on the shoulders of great men and claim anything; but I've said this before, and it bears repeating:

You (scientists) tell me what to conclude, and I won't dispute it, unless it contradicts the Bible.

For the record, my agreement with scientists could get me in hot water with my pastor/church; but I'm willing to take that chance.

My pastor is a YEC -- I'm an embedded age creationist.

 

[D2wing]

True and I respect that. But part of that is also false. For instance it is said by scientist's that Einstein proved Newton wrong, and now they say Einstein was wrong concerning the speed of light and time. They have discovered particles that move faster than light. Science is not linear.
Some discoveries shatter all previous beliefs and many well built towers of theories come crashing down.
One day we who believe in God will know the truth and maybe laugh about how silly some arguments and ideas turned out. I feel bad about those that do not believe in God.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh gosh, a cut and answer post. Oh well, right-ho:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Denial noted.

At least I can get you laughing.

Well, you aren't really making me laugh, the way the denial is consistent across conditions is what is comical.

I find it interesting -- and always have -- that agreeing with scientists' conclusions (the age of the earth for example) -- isn't good enough.

Cherry-picking things that make you feel good isn't likely to satisfy anyone but you.

One has to agree with how scientists arrived at that conclusion as well, don't they?

That's rather the point.

This everything-or-nothing attitude doesn't cut it with me.

What cuts it with you is only what is self-gratifying.

I thought I already answered NO (or I HOPE NOT) to that?

Fair enough. But without it you would presumably revert to how you were immediately before you found it, and you said that wasn't a great place.

If walking by faith is an "extreme" to you, is walking by sight an "extreme" to you as well?

Denying reality is extreme to me. Using faith to justify it is extreme to almost everyone.

I hope so.

I hope I don't come across as a militant crusader for the cause.

Not really, as the only cause that matters to you is you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I've seen what a faith that "embraces [mundane] reality" does to even basic doctrine -- and want no part of it.

Because what you get from your version of 'faith' is too important to even risk looking at a more mature version of the religion. Reality doesn't get a look in. You're not going to risk the good feeling for anything.

Correct.

Instead of the worldly logical, try the divinely theological to get the whole picture.

But, just as the Bible says, it can't be done by unbelievers; and many are QED of that very truth.

Again, the denial is comically reminiscent of other conditions that result from reality-facing issues, "it just can't be done if you're not on my wavelength, man". As I said, this is beyond rational argument and is in other more troubling territory where you need specialists to help.

 

[AV1611VET]

What cuts it with you is only what is self-gratifying.

I'm not going to dignify posts that imply I have some kind of narcissistic personality disorder with a response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this type of discussion it is helpful to keep in mind there are two sides to any science vs religion argument and neither side knows the answer.
God made the Earth in a supernatural way. God is not constrained by time as he invented it and lives outside it. Rocks are as old as he made them, we don't know the exact time or age. He could have made things old to begin with or he could have compressed time.
I do not think science disagrees with Christianity. But there is a faction of science that is determined to prove there is no God so results are skewed and not looked at with an open mind but with assumptions based on other assumptions.
True science should benefit us all instead of being used to prove the unprovable. The discussion is interesting. Facts are great but they are not proof of God or no God.

The problem with an "embedded age" is that is simply a careful wording of the claim that "God is lying". Even when I was a Christian I did not believe in a dishonest God. Yes, if a God wanted to, and was all powerful, he could have created you last Tuesday. The question is why would he? If one believes in an honest God then "embedded age" is not possible. There is no excuse for making all of the Earth's geology conform to one false picture. If the "dates" of various rocks did not support geology, then you could question them. The fact that they do leaves us with two choices, either the dates are right or we have a dishonest God that is trying to lead us astray. The latter makes no sense to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to dignify posts that imply I have some kind of narcissistic personality disorder with a response.