My Watch Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Why would it be necessary to make a new thing look old?

"Look" old?

Interesting way you worded that question.

Let me ask you:

Why would it be necessary to make a new thing old?

Luke 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
Why would it be necessary to make a new thing old?
-snip-

It is not possible to make a new thing old, its a contradiction in terms.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not possible to make a new thing old, its a contradiction in terms.

Like the triune Godhead?

 

[VirOptimus]

Like the triune Godhead?

Im not sure what point you think you are making. But anyway, I dont belive in god(s).

 

[AV1611VET]

Im not sure what point you think you are making.

The triune Godhead ... are you familiar with it?

You might know it as the Trinity.

So if contradictions in terms bother you, I'd stay away from debating Christians.

Mark 10:31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

2 Corinthians 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

 

[VirOptimus]

The triune Godhead ... are you familiar with it?

You might know it as the Trinity.

So if contradictions in terms bother you, I'd stay away from debating Christians.

Mark 10:31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

2 Corinthians 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

I debate who I want to.

I have no problem with the trinity or theology in general, I'm actually quite velversed in theology and philosophy.

Its you who have problems, trying to "debate" against physical reality, its quite foolish and bad theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm actually quite velversed in theology ...

Do you expect logical answers to basic questions when discussing basic doctrine?

If you do, then just how velversed are you?

 

[dmmesdale]

Why would it be necessary to make a new thing look old?

Already explained and if there is a problem with new and old then simply use a different term. Like developed.

We're talking about the garden of Eden here.

I was addressing Adam and Eve.

Non-sentient animals wouldn't care and sentient animals would know it's a deception.

What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Can't you look at it if even in theory?

So what possible reason would there be for the deceit?

There is no deceit and i don't know why you would say that. Are you trying to make some sort of logic claim or another appeal to outrage of some sort? If you want contradictions then the assumptions all life is from nonlife is the real contradiction. And then dragging science into it all to gussie it all up is downright criminal. That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up. So i have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you expect logical answers to basic questions when discussing basic doctrine?

If you do, then just how velversed are you?

Yes I do expect logical answers.

You are, from what I can gather, not velversed in theology at all.

 

[joshua 1 9]

True science; old earth, no global flood

According to True Science the global flood took place around 200 million years ago when Pangea was broken up. They refer to this as plate tectonics today. Noah's flood is just a shadow and a type of what took place at the time of the dinosaurs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What does your wristwatch look like after ten years?

You must have a good memory if you still remember wristwatches. If you had a watch that only lost or gained two or three min a month you were doing really good. If you add that up to 30 min a year then the watch would be off about 5 hours after 10 years. The atomic clock has only been off about 3 seconds over 10 years.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You are, from what I can gather, not velversed in theology at all.

He is pretty much a fundy. Even if he prefers his own personal twist on things.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I love to study the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

I know quite a few pastors that are very good at explaining the meaning of everything in the Tabernacle. All of the Bible has meaning for us today.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why would it be necessary to make a new thing old?

Because you want to deceive others?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Already explained and if there is a problem with new and old then simply use a different term. Like developed.

"Possibly necessary" is not an explanation.

I was addressing Adam and Eve.

Do you know where Adam and Eve were created? It was in a certain, well known garden

What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Can't you look at it if even in theory?

Who (or what) would God be deceiving if not the denizens of the Garden of Eden?

There is no deceit and i don't know why you would say that.

So making a thing look like something it's not is not a deceit? Shall we call it duplicitous instead?

That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up.

The moment you present a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claims about the Genesis story you will be in a position to make that accusation against others. Until then you're just being hypocritical.

So i have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?

I consider it immoral. Do you consider deceit to be acceptable?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you want to deceive others?

QV please:

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

 

[dmmesdale]

So making a thing look like something it's not is not a deceit? Shall we call it duplicitous instead?

Call it what you will.

The moment you present a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claims about the Genesis story you will be in a position to make that accusation against others. Until then you're just being hypocritical.

Are you breaking the rules here? That is OK, i will not report. I would say the Bible is empirical and has multiple accounts, so it appears you do not know what evidence is. There is also extra Bible sources attesting to the existence of Adam and Eve. It is snapshots into what they believed including Jesus so why is Jesus wrong and you right? That being, Jesus is around 2000 years closer to the events in question and modern critics 2000 yrs removed? Do you know the moderns were wrong about Jesus myth and King David myth? So why are they right about say, Moses or Adam? How many times are the moderns allowed to be wrong before they lose credibility? Even the kings of Europe traced their ancestory back to Adam. So why are they all wrong and you right?

Adam & Eve

I consider it immoral. Do you consider deceit to be acceptable?

No, and don't practice deceit if you consider it unacceptable. Although i would like to know, as an atheist under what objective basis do you consider deceit immoral? Or is it simply a subjective opinion you impose but do not follow? Do as you say and not as you do?

You did not address my assertion about all life from nonlife. Here, I will repeat it for you. Are you trying to make some sort of logic claim or another appeal to outrage of some sort? If you want contradictions, then the assumptions all life is from nonlife is the real contradiction. And then dragging science into it all to gussie it all up is downright criminal. That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up. So I have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?

Do you know where Adam and Eve were created? It was in a certain, well known garden

No i don't know and i doubt you know where the first life originated on Earth so what is your point? Do you know how it happened? Can you locate the magical prebiotic soup in which life came about? Why do you ask these questions when you can't answer them yourself? Are you assuming we have to and you don't?

 

[dmmesdale]

Because you want to deceive others?

Is that a rule violation?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you breaking the rules here? That is OK, i will not report. I would say the Bible is empirical and has multiple accounts, so it appears you do not know what evidence is.

I'm not breaking any rules - I'm allowed to say you're being hypocritical if that's what you're doing. Perhaps you should read the rules before you start accusing people of breaking them. It's also apparent that you don't understand the word "empirical". Allow me to educate you: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." The bible is not empirical. Commentaries on the bible are not empirical.

No, and don't practice deceit if you consider it unacceptable.

Are you accusing me of deceit? That would be reportable unless you can point to where I've attempted to deceive you.

You did not address my assertion about all life from nonlife.

2 things here:
1. You freely admit it's an assertion. I therefore have nothing to address.
2. It's off topic.

That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up. So I have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?

It's bad manners to ignore my response and simply repeat yourself.

Why do you ask these questions when you can't answer them yourself? Are you assuming we have to and you don't?

If you make a claim you need to support it. If you can't then don't make the claim.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

QV please:
It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

QV please:

Why would it be necessary to make a new thing old?

Looking old and being physically mature are not the same thing.

Addressing Clarke's commentary, why did vegetation have to be mature at creation? Surely God had enough time to grow plants from seed. Was God not able to wait a few weeks before creating man? Sounds like special pleading to me.