My TQ Challenge

[Kylie]

What are you getting at?

History -- events that occurred with the passage of time.

A dress created with embedded age would not have a history.

In fact, I define embedded age as: "mature without history."

A dress that is so old it falls apart with age is a dress that has been around for a long time and has seen the earth orbit the sun many many times.

A dress created tomorrow with the same amount of age hasn't even been in existence for one second.

So the difference between the two dresses is history: one has a history, the other doesn't.

Oh, now you are contradicting yourself.

I asked you what the difference is between a dress that is actually so old it falls apart with age and a dress that has the APPEARANCE of age, even to the degree that it falls apart as an old dress would be expected to.

You said "history."

But now you are saying that tomorrow, God could create a dress that has the APPEARANCE of age, even to the degree that it falls apart as an old dress would be expected to, and it would HAVE NO HISTORY AT ALL.

So what's the difference between the two dresses? Is it history, or is it age?

 

[durangodawood]

.So what's the difference between the two dresses? Is it history, or is it age?

The old dress really aged.

The new-old dress was distressed to fool people that it was aged.

I ran into some builders a few years ago who were working on Ralph Lauren's Telluride mansion, and a new door arrived for installation. Problem: it looked new, but Ralph likes stuff that looks "real" and "authentic". Solution: I think they beat it with chains or something until age and used was properly faked.

 

[Colter]

List your toughest question(s) here.

Honest thought-provoking legitimate questions you would like to see answered honestly.

Mine are:

1. If God created an apple ex nihilo, what evidence would you give your friend He did this?
2. Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?
3. If God created a loaf of raisin bread ex materia, would it constitute deception, since raisins are dried grapes?

1) None, it would be improvable.

2) Why would he? The question is based on the necessity to bend the facts of an old earth to fit the fiction of the creation story of Genesis, one of many creation story's.

3) No

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Something from nothing is not not logical.

Agreed....

Nothing existed before Big Bang: Stephen Hawking

"“There was nothing around before the Big, Big Bang,” Hawking said."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then why doesn't God just snap his fingers and make all the non-christians into Christians?

For the same reason I don't believe you can steal my kidney..... or have you forgotten your stance on the right to freedom of choice????

 

[Kylie]

For the same reason I don't believe you can steal my kidney..... or have you forgotten your stance on the right to freedom of choice????

Was I asking for your opinion? Or was I asking for the opinion of @Dave-W ? Are you him? No? Then why do you assume you can speak for him?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was I asking for your opinion? Or was I asking for the opinion of @Dave-W ? Are you him? No? Then why do you assume you can speak for him?

Are you saying you wouldn't recognize the right answer if you saw it?

 

[Kylie]

Are you saying you wouldn't recognize the right answer if you saw it?

I'm saying that if I ask @Dave-W a question, I want to hear an answer from @Dave-W, not from you or anyone else. This is not a complicated concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm saying that if I ask @Dave-W a question, I want to hear an answer from @Dave-W, not from you or anyone else. This is not a complicated concept.

May I suggest you PM him?

This is a public forum, you know.

Dave may or may not answer, but in his own time.

 

[Kylie]

May I suggest you PM him?

This is a public forum, you know.

Dave may or may not answer, but in his own time.

And if he is able to see that he has a message from me, he will also be able to see that I have not only quoted his post but tagged him as well. Nothing will be served by sending a PM.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if he is able to see that he has a message from me, he will also be able to see that I have not only quoted his post but tagged him as well. Nothing will be served by sending a PM.

Great!

And if he decides to respond, he can respond at his convenience.

And if he decides not to respond, he can refrain from responding at his convenience as well.

In the meantime, how about a little courtesy for those who respond before he does; or for those who respond before he doesn't?

Unless you think our answers will influence his?

 

[sfs]

Why do you think the Bible is God's word?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think the Bible is God's word?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[sfs]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

I suspected you wouldn't answer my question. You didn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suspected you wouldn't answer my question. You didn't.

Did you miss the part that says: "which effectually worketh also in you that believe"?

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

And ye have had the fullest proof that ye have not believed in vain; for that doctrine, under the power and influence of the Holy Ghost, has worked most powerfully in you, filling you with light, life, and holiness.

From Albert Barnes' NT Commentary:

The meaning is, that the truth was made efficacious in the minds of all who became true Christians.

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

"Also," besides your accepting it with your hearts, it evidences itself in your lives.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Was I asking for your opinion? Or was I asking for the opinion of @Dave-W ? Are you him? No? Then why do you assume you can speak for him?

You got your answer, you yourself gave it in one of your own threads.

hypocrite!!!!!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you saying you wouldn't recognize the right answer if you saw it?

No, she's saying she wants to ignore my answer because her own thread she posted awhile back answers her own question.... She's just being hypocritical and knows it and so got upset......

 

[sfs]

Did you miss the part that says: "which effectually worketh also in you that believe"?

No, I didn't miss it at all. It's Paul stating what he believes about the effect of his own preaching on others. He's not even talking about the Bible. I'm asking you why you believe the Bible. If it's because you have experienced something by means of the Bible, great -- say so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I didn't miss it at all. It's Paul stating what he believes about the effect of his own preaching on others. He's not even talking about the Bible. I'm asking you why you believe the Bible. If it's because you have experienced something by means of the Bible, great -- say so.

Who's preaching effects us still since it was written down for us to read.....

 

[AV1611VET]

You got your answer, you yourself gave it in one of your own threads.

Justa, she's not worth getting moderated over.

She knows how to get under our skin.

Please reconsider.