My Unoffensive Challenge

Archie the Preacher · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
"Let him be accursed when the LORD returns."

So, just to make sure I understand, all those who understand Genesis and Creation to have happened in any way other than your understanding should be declared heretical and condemned?

John Hyperspace · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Let's simplify this:

What existed in the physical universe as mass after Day One of the Creation Week?

I say the only thing in existence at that time was one big round ball of sea water that, for lack of a better term, I call Terra Aqua.

What say you?

I say I have no useful understanding of literal cosmogenies. Any model I could offer would have equal value to any other, being the result of the same process of informative interpretation; all being tentative approximations, thereby having no actual usefulness other than in being an academic exercise.

AV1611VET said:
And if you're going to allegorize Genesis 1, I vote we just end the conversation right here and now.

(Although I am curious as to what myth starters think the universe consisted of at the end of Day One.)

Yet, your initial question was not a question of, do you have a cosmogenic model to propose? It was asking, about the offensiveness of certain models. One's personal understanding of exact details of cosmogenic hypotheses is irrelevant in address of such a question concerning offensiveness of competeing models.

Chesterton · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
I know those verses, but not like you do.

Pretty straightforward. Hard to know them as other than what they say.

If Paul was the first pope, who was Pope Paul I?

Paul I was a bishop of Rome, the first one named Paul, hence Pope Paul I.

I said Paul of Tarsus was a pope, a "papa", because that's what he called himself at least a couple of times. But I don't want to derail.

AV1611VET · Nov 10, 2016

Archie the Preacher said:
So, just to make sure I understand, all those who understand Genesis and Creation to have happened in any way other than your understanding should be declared heretical and condemned?

When Jesus comes back at the end of the Tribulation period and sets up His millennial kingdom, He is going to pwn evolution back to where it came from.

And certainly one way He can do it is to take unbelievers back in time to 4004 BC and let them see the Creation Week as spectators.

In the meantime, evolution is going to wax worse and worse, culminating during the Tribulation period, when the Antichrist, a superscientist, performs an act of abiogenesis on an inanimate object, convincing scientists to take the Mark.

Just a pet theory of mine, but one that I think is a good one.

AV1611VET · Nov 10, 2016

John Hyperspace said:
Yet, your initial question was not a question of, do you have a cosmogenic model to propose? It was asking, about the offensiveness of certain models. One's personal understanding of exact details of cosmogenic hypotheses is irrelevant in address of such a question concerning offensiveness of competeing models.

Meaning you don't have an answer?

And rather than admit as much, just shoot the questioner with big words and fancy talk that mean nothing to said target?

AV1611VET · Nov 10, 2016

Chesterton said:
Paul I was a bishop of Rome, the first one named Paul, hence Pope Paul I.

QV please:

Pope Paul I was Pope from 29 May 757 to his death in 767.

SOURCE

Chesterton · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
QV please:

SOURCE

Why are you QVing me to see the same thing I said?

John Hyperspace · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Meaning you don't have an answer?

In fact, no one does. Only tentative approximations based on biased conjecture. Sometimes it is better to simply, admit when one does not know.

AV1611VET said:
And rather than admit as much, just shoot the questioner with big words and fancy talk that mean nothing to said target?

I just did "admit as much": I never stated it in prior posts because it seems you are now ignoring the original question which I was addressing. Instead of asking, one question, then, shifting to another: why not just ask the second question first? It would seem more efficient.

AV1611VET · Nov 10, 2016

John Hyperspace said:
In fact, no one does.

Speak for yourself please.

That would be true if Genesis 1 was an allegory; but it isn't.

Meaning I can agree with this passage:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

John Hyperspace · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Speak for yourself please.

My statement is universally true.

AV1611VET said:
That would be true if Genesis 1 was an allegory; but it isn't.

It is both; but the literal side of the equation has no actual value. Meaning, how you literally interpret Genesis 1 may be an accurate translation of idea, but, then again, it may not be. Competing literal interpretations have equal value, and no literal interpretation can be evidentially verified. In other words, your literal interpretation may be correct, then again, it may not be. There is no way to determine the veracity. This is why it has no actual usefulness: it does nothing but propose an interpretation which cannot be verified in any meaningful way.

Add to this that, even a verifiable literal interpretation would hold no actual value in that, the information conveyed has no value except for information's sake. It has no applicable, transformational substance. So, not only is the literal interpretation of no use since we cannot determine which literal interpretation is correct, but it has no applicable spiritual function. It is altogether profitless, save as an acedemic exercise.

AV1611VET said:
Meaning I can agree with this passage:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Everyone who believes the Bible agrees with the Bible, obviously. Every competing literal interpretation of Genesis 1 agrees with the narrative. Disagreement only arises over, how to interpret the actual narrative.

If you would have caught me maybe 10 years ago, you'd be seeing me go on and on about my literal understanding of Genesis. But, thanks to the Cross, I have realized there is no profit in the literal understanding, and have crucified it along with all other carnal understanding of the Word of God. All that remains now is the Spirit.

Biologist · Nov 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Meaning you don't have an answer?

And rather than admit as much, just shoot the questioner with big words and fancy talk that mean nothing to said target?

I have the answer to your questions but we would have to rebuild the second temple and wait for debauchery to flood the earth.

Jimmy D · Nov 11, 2016

John Hyperspace said:
Everyone who believes the Bible agrees with the Bible, obviously. Every competing literal interpretation of Genesis 1 agrees with the narrative. Disagreement only arises over, how to interpret the actual narrative.

Biologist said:
I have the answer to your questions but we would have to rebuild the second temple and wait for debauchery to flood the earth.

Seems you've all got answers, it's just that they're all different. Where's the Holy Spirit when you need it?

AV1611VET · Nov 11, 2016

Jimmy D said:
Where's the Holy Spirit when you need it?

Searching for a feather with a metal detector, are you?

Jimmy D · Nov 11, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Searching for a feather with a metal detector, are you?

No

Archie the Preacher · Nov 11, 2016

AV1611VET said:
When Jesus comes back at the end of the Tribulation period and sets up His millennial kingdom...

Just a pet theory of mine, but one that I think is a good one.

So you're not going to come out and say 'Evolution' and all those connected are 'Anathema'? Probably a good choice as far as this forum is concerned, but rather weak in terms of conviction, don't you think? (I do.)

You earlier mentioned "Do you know the mind of Christ?" Let me ask you this; Do you know the commandments of Christ? Specifically Jesus' word in the Gospel of John, Chapter 15, vv 9 - 17.

One can, in (agapeo) love, attempt to correct another believer. One cannot, in (agapeo) love, declare them anathema.

TLK Valentine · Nov 21, 2016

AV1611VET said:
What's so unoffensive about evolution that it can't be considered anathema maranatha?

All of it.

Mobezom · Nov 21, 2016

"Augh! It offends me! Rush to the blinds and close off the light of knowledge!"

"My precious faith... no! Baggins has taken it and replaced it with facts!"

Hey, you call me damned and I call you Sméagol, fair trade right?

AV1611VET · Nov 21, 2016

Mobezom said:
Baggins

Welcome back!

Astrophile · Nov 21, 2016

AV1611VET said:
I say the only thing in existence at that time was one big round ball of sea water that, for lack of a better term, I call Terra Aqua.

What say you?

If the Earth was 'one big round ball of sea water' that had the mass of the Earth and the density of sea water, it would have had a diameter of about 22,300 km, or about 13,850 miles.

If the Earth began as 'one big round ball of sea water', where did the rocks that now form 99.98% of its mass come from?

AV1611VET · Nov 21, 2016

Astrophile said:
If the Earth began as 'one big round ball of sea water', where did the rocks that now form 99.98% of its mass come from?

As I understand it, sea water contains almost every element found on the Periodic Table.

When God ordered the dry land to appear, the elements in the sea water obeyed, and Eden came forth.

My Unoffensive Challenge

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

UnKnown ReMember

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

UnKnown ReMember

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

UnKnown ReMember

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

I've already read the books you want burned.

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency