My Watch Challenge

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

That's their prerogative.

I have a slew of thought-provoking challenges I've issued over the years here: just for them.

If this is reflective of your "slew of thought-provoking challenges", then I'm not sure that you've reached a single person who disagrees with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

If this is reflective of your "slew of thought-provoking challenges", then I'm not sure that you've reached a single person who disagrees with you.

If I did, then they wouldn't disagree with me, would they?

I'd like to ask you a question though:

If you've studied all these religions, as you said you did, then why do you expect us to be logical?

You should know from your studies that expecting [worldly] logic from a man or woman of faith is like expecting the Bible to be used as a science textbook.

If you're as educated as I think you are, do you define "faith" as "believing what you know isn't true"?

If so, where's the logic in those Christians who were/are martyred for their faith?

If they knew what they were writing wasn't true ... and if they were caught and told to recant ... and didn't ... your logic and all that education can take a hike.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Clearly, most christians disagree that it is "clear".

The Bible is written in what we call shadows and types? Man can not teach us the Bible. Each and every individual is responsible to discover the Word of God for themselves. Everyone is given a choice and everyone is responsible for the choice they make.

 

[joshua 1 9]

expecting the Bible to be used as a science textbook.

A right understanding of the Bible is in 100% agreement with true science. God gave us the Bible and God gives us Science so there are no contradictions.

 

[AV1611VET]

A right understanding of the Bible is in 100% agreement with true science. God gave us the Bible and God gives us Science so there are no contradictions.

I totally agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is written in what we call shadows and types? Man can not teach us the Bible. Each and every individual is responsible to discover the Word of God for themselves. Everyone is given a choice and everyone is responsible for the choice they make.

I love to study the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

It was a three dimensional type of Jesus Christ.

Just one example:

There were sixty boards surrounding the outer fence, each topped off with silver blocks, forged from half-shekel donations of silver ... corresponding to the thirty pieces of silver that He was betrayed for!

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

If I did, then they wouldn't disagree with me, would they?

I'd like to ask you a question though:

If you've studied all these religions, as you said you did, then why do you expect us to be logical?

You should know from your studies that expecting [worldly] logic from a man or woman of faith is like expecting the Bible to be used as a science textbook.

There are strong philosophical traditions within Christianity and within most other world religions that actually helped classical strands of thought, like Aristotelianism and the Socratic method, to survive the collapse of the ancient civilizations that developed them. While I may disagree with the conclusions that they reach, most traditions put a great deal of value on reasoning, as an important belief is that human beings can reach the belief/knowledge that there is a god (although not necessarily the God) through reason alone based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

Different religions and a few branches within Christianity have some odd views on logic and reason, but for the most part, those are ideas that are at least in theory held in high esteem.

If you're as educated as I think you are, do you define "faith" as "believing what you know isn't true"?

No. No one is going to genuinely believe something that they know isn't true. As you noted, people die for their belief in God. If someone does that, then they definitely aren't acting on a "belief" that they know is inaccurate. So, the rest of this post is pretty irrelevant since it assumes that I have a view that I definitely don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are strong philosophical traditions within Christianity ...

And we are to beware of them ...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

... lest we let them infiltrate our churches and dilute them.

A process the Bobgans call "psychoheresy".

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

A process the Bobgans call "psychoheresy".

I haven't heard from those guys in forever. I'm pretty sure that they're opposed to psychology rather than philosophy, though. Maybe they're opposed to both. It wouldn't really surprise me, but I prefer not to read anymore of their stuff for the simple reason that people with similar ideas caused me a great deal of unnecessary suffering when I was younger, and I don't enjoy getting unreasonably angry (especially not when I'm actually enjoying a conversation, like I am with this one; I wouldn't be here if I didn't like debating with people who I disagree with and who's opinions I want to better understand).

At any rate, though, none of this is really relevant to my response. I was replying to your question of why I would assume that "we" (implying all Christians) would care about logic after studying Christianity. Your views on questions like whether God can create a paradox like a new old dress aren't really typical, and that's what I was pointing out. If you hold those views, then that's fine and actually kind of interesting, but they don't reflect nearly as common a position within Christianity as that question would suggest.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was replying to your question of why I would assume that "we" (implying all Christians) would care about logic after studying Christianity.

I didn't say that though.

I said this:

If you've studied all these religions,

And here are your exact words:

As someone who's studied world religions quite a lot,

Let's not lay a lack of [worldly] logic just at the doorstep of Christianity, eh?

Your views on questions like whether God can create a paradox like a new old dress aren't really typical, and that's what I was pointing out. If you hold those views, then that's fine and actually kind of interesting, but they don't reflect nearly as common a position within Christianity as that question would suggest.

How many different flavors of creationism have you studied within Christianity specifically, and world religions as a whole?

If you've studied them all ... or most of them ... I'm sure you've learned to leave logic out of the conversation.

But perhaps that's your club, and you enjoy using it to club religious people over the head with?

I don't mean to come off as rude, but scientists like to throw sand in our eyes with their various disciplines, and philosophers like to hit us over the head with their logic, and someone needs to point out their errors.

Clipboards, telescopes, microscopes, philosophy, DNA, ERVs, tree rings, ice cores, pyramids, Hebrew, Greek, Masoretic texts, Septuagints, Vulgates, bottleneck catastrophes, evolution, and Heaven knows what all else can all take a hike: a long one on a short pier.

My suggestion to you ... as well as anyone who is going to study the religions of the world ... is learn to leave logic outside of the classroom door, stifle the giggles and funny looks, and try doing something you (the class) probably stopped doing before you decided to take that class: grow up.

 

[Kylie]

Joe is wearing a watch he's had for ten years.

It has a cracked crystal, a rusted and corroded case, moisture seepage, bent stem, multiple scratches and pits, broken second hand, and a torn strap.

My question is this:

If Joe said he bought that watch brand new ten years ago, would you accuse him of being deceptive with you?

*sigh*

What is your point with this one, AV? That things look old after the passage of time?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your point with this one, AV? That things look old after the passage of time?

I assume you would not accuse Joe of deception, if he was wearing a messed-up watch, but said he bought it brand new ten years ago.

So why would educatees accuse God of deception if they are looking at an earth that has been getting dents and scratches and cracks and pits for just over 6000 years?

 

[Belk]

I assume you would not accuse Joe of deception, if he was wearing a mess-up watch, but said he bought it brand new ten years ago.

So why would educatees accuse God of deception if they are looking at an earth that has been getting dents and scratches and cracks and pits for just over 6000 years?

Because it has 4.5 billion years of history.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I assume you would not accuse Joe of deception, if he was wearing a mess-up watch, but said he bought it brand new ten years ago.

So why would educatees accuse God of deception if they are looking at an earth that has been getting dents and scratches and cracks and pits for just over 6000 years?

The earth has been getting dents and scratches and cracks and pits for a lot longer than 6000 years.

And the analogy with Joe's watch doesn't work, unless you're saying that the damage indicates that the watch has been suffering damage for more than 10 years. In which case the watch is older than 10 years and Joe is a liar.

 

[driewerf]

Joe is wearing a watch he's had for ten years.

It has a cracked crystal, a rusted and corroded case, moisture seepage, bent stem, multiple scratches and pits, broken second hand, and a torn strap.

My question is this:

If Joe said he bought that watch brand new ten years ago, would you accuse him of being deceptive with you?

I just wouldn't give him the keys of my car, I wouldn't let him watch over my kids and I would decline every dinner invitation if he is the cook.

 

[HitchSlap]

A right understanding of the Bible is in 100% agreement with true science. God gave us the Bible and God gives us Science so there are no contradictions.

True science; old earth, no global flood, earth doesn't stop, no 'lesser' night light, life evolves, mixed fabrics not a problem, can't see entire earth from highest building, Jews never slaves in Egypt...

But I get it, as long as you shoehorn science to fit your beliefs, no "contradictions."

 

[AV1611VET]

I just wouldn't give him the keys of my car, I wouldn't let him watch over my kids and I would decline every dinner invitation if he is the cook.

What does your wristwatch look like after ten years?

 

[dmmesdale]

I mean, by definition, no. Asking if God could create a new old thing is kind of like asking if God could create a four-sided triangle.

The start of life here would naturally be different from an ongoing life involving birth of infants. Frist life would not be infants but somehow enabled with the ability to survive to reproduce. Infants would not fit the bill. In theory, they would be adults equipped with the capacity to reason and perform tasks conducive to survival or assignment.

Most Christians would agree that God can't do things that are logically impossible, like add two and two to equal five.

Yeah there are logic truths autonomous of scientific findings.

Something being both new and old is contradictory and logically impossible.

New life would not have to start from infancy since infants are incapable of survival. Adam and Eve depicted as unique. We deduce they were immortal before the fall and described as living a long life post fall. That means they were superior beings relative to us who live short lives by comparison. As depicted we are the downgraded version.

Presumably he could make something to look old when it wasn't, but that would definitely be deceptive.

Perhaps necessary.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Perhaps necessary.

Why would it be necessary to make a new thing look old? We're talking about the garden of Eden here. Non-sentient animals wouldn't care and sentient animals would know it's a deception. So what possible reason would there be for the deceit?

 

[quatona]

Fender Rory Gallagher Relic Strat