Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

...celebrating the notion that it was such a wonderful argument that it stunned Kylie into silence...

It's called "having a life outside this website."

I have a daughter, I have a husband, I have a job. I consider all of them to be much more important than replying to posts here.

But hey, if you want me to be available 24/7 so I can respond immediately, please feel free to make sure I'm financially in a position where I can give up my job, as well as compensate me for the reduced family time.

My Husband: "Hey, Kylie, let's go out for a romantic dinner at your favorite restaurant."

Me: "I can't, I have to be ready in case someone posts on Christian Forums."

 

[Fervent]

Once again, Muhammad converting followers through threats of violence is NOT the same thing as how Muhammad first came to hold that faith in the first place.

Sure, but Muhammad having delusions of grandeur and allowing his imagination to believe that he was super important and that everything he wanted was his for the taking because he was the chosen of Allah is a simple explanation. Might Muhammad have really believed what he claimed to? Sure, but one man having "revelations" doesn't need much further explanation.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, but Muhammad having delusions of grandeur and allowing his imagination to believe that he was super important and that everything he wanted was his for the taking because he was the chosen of Allah is a simple explanation. Might Muhammad have really believed what he claimed to? Sure, but one man having "revelations" doesn't need much further explanation.

Hold on...

Back in post 2515, you claimed that the fact that Islam has followers who are willing to die for their beliefs was "irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold."

Now you are claiming that the origin of Islamic beliefs is pretty much irrelevant, while the origin of Christian beliefs is not.

How can the topic be about the difference between how the two faiths originated when you discard one of the origin stories as irrelevant?

 

[Fervent]

Hold on...

Back in post 2515, you claimed that the fact that Islam has followers who are willing to die for their beliefs was "irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold."\

No, what was irrelevant was your equivocating periods in which Christians have used coercive methods with Islam's relying on coercive methods from the inception.

Now you are claiming that the origin of Islamic beliefs is pretty much irrelevant, while the origin of Christian beliefs is not.

Nope, I'm claiming that it's quite easy to explain a single lunatic having revelations from God. Islam's origins are perfectly relevaant, it's simply that we don't need any kind of elaborate theories to explain it. Just a man who has convinced himself that God has chosen him. Is your reading comprehension really this poor, or are you being willfully obtuse?

How can the topic be about the difference between how the two faiths originated when you discard one of the origin stories as irrelevant?

 

[Kylie]

No, what was irrelevant was your equivocating periods in which Christians have used coercive methods with Islam's relying on coercive methods from the inception.

And once again you resort to talking about the SPREAD rather than the ORIGIN.

Nope, I'm claiming that it's quite easy to explain a single lunatic having revelations from God. Islam's origins are perfectly relevaant, it's simply that we don't need any kind of elaborate theories to explain it. Just a man who has convinced himself that God has chosen him. Is your reading comprehension really this poor, or are you being willfully obtuse?

Yeah, lots of religions have started because someone believes God chose them, or that they are God.

And yet you start with the assumption that this claim is actually true when it comes to Jesus.

(Oh, and you forgot to respond to the last part of my post.)

 

[BCP1928]

It's called "having a life outside this website."

I have a daughter, I have a husband, I have a job. I consider all of them to be much more important than replying to posts here.

But hey, if you want me to be available 24/7 so I can respond immediately, please feel free to make sure I'm financially in a position where I can give up my job, as well as compensate me for the reduced family time.

My Husband: "Hey, Kylie, let's go out for a romantic dinner at your favorite restaurant."

Me: "I can't, I have to be ready in case someone posts on Christian Forums."

LOL! Another thing the cricket people forget is that maybe, just maybe, the "wonderful argument" is sometimes too lame to be worth responding to.

 

[Fervent]

And once again you resort to talking about the SPREAD rather than the ORIGIN.

I have been talking about the first Christians, which includes both the methods they used to spread the message and how they came by that message in the first place. My argument hasn't changed, you just seem to be having a really difficult time with basic reading comprehension to follow the argument.

Yeah, lots of religions have started because someone believes God chose them, or that they are God.

And yet you start with the assumption that this claim is actually true when it comes to Jesus.

I don't start with that assumption, I look at the historical evidene that is available and find the most plausible explanation is that the resurrection actually happened. I then conclude that Jesus is God.

(Oh, and you forgot to respond to the last part of my post.)

I didn't respond directly to that last bit because I had addressed it in the previous bits. I don't discard the origin of one as irrelevant, I recognize that there's a really simple explanation for Islam's origin(i.e. a guy who was good at military tactics fancied himself a messenger of God and was willing to use his military prowess to force conversions ) There's nothng mysterious about it. On the other hand, there's a serious lack in naturalistic explanations of the historical facts surrounding Christianity's origin and initial spread. So no where did I imply or claim that the origins of one were irrelevant, just that they can be easily explained.

 

[Kylie]

I have been talking about the first Christians, which includes both the methods they used to spread the message and how they came by that message in the first place. My argument hasn't changed, you just seem to be having a really difficult time with basic reading comprehension to follow the argument.

And yet when you talk about Muslims, the whole "How they came about their faith in the first place" bit seems to have escaped you.

I don't start with that assumption, I look at the historical evidene that is available and find the most plausible explanation is that the resurrection actually happened. I then conclude that Jesus is God.

Biblical scholars pretty much agree that the only thing we can say for certain about Jesus is that he was baptised and later crucified.

Perhaps you have some evidence which they missed?

I didn't respond directly to that last bit because I had addressed it in the previous bits. I don't discard the origin of one as irrelevant, I recognize that there's a really simple explanation for Islam's origin(i.e. a guy who was good at military tactics fancied himself a messenger of God and was willing to use his military prowess to force conversions ) There's nothng mysterious about it. On the other hand, there's a serious lack in naturalistic explanations of the historical facts surrounding Christianity's origin and initial spread. So no where did I imply or claim that the origins of one were irrelevant, just that they can be easily explained.

The origin would have been WHY he believed himself to be a messenger of God.

You have said nothing about that except to say, "Maybe he was just delusional."

 

[Fervent]

And yet when you talk about Muslims, the whole "How they came about their faith in the first place" bit seems to have escaped you.

Not at all, its simply that there's nothing challenging to explain about their origins.

Biblical scholars pretty much agree that the only thing we can say for certain about Jesus is that he was baptised and later crucified.

"Biblical scholars"? There's a pretty wide amount of disagreement, though I suspect I know a few of the ones you prefer(and why you prefer them). And those "certainties" are enough to raise the challenges that I'm bringing up, because the question is how did a crucified man gain such a following that people were willing to go to the grave saying that He rose from the dead and walked among them?

0
Perhaps you have some evidence which they missed?

Not that they missed, but that they dismissed because of their presuppositions.

The origin would have been WHY he believed himself to be a messenger of God.

Nope, the origin is in how the apostles came to that belief. Unless you believe that Jesus rose from the dead to proclaim that message to them, that is....I read too fast, this is supposed to be about Muhammad isn't it?

You have said nothing about that except to say, "Maybe he was just delusional."

What more needs to be said? What does that not explain?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So I take it this thread is no longer about embedded age, huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

So I take it this thread is no longer about embedded age, huh?

As I stipulated in my test:

1. Define Embedded Age.
2. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
3. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
4. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
14. What was the first object in the universe that had mass?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As I stipulated in my test:

1. Define Embedded Age.
2. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
3. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
4. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
14. What was the first object in the universe that had mass?

To be honest, I don't even think we're in the realm of Biblical questions anymore. This whole shebang has just gone out the window.

 

[BCP1928]

So I take it this thread is no longer about embedded age, huh?

Well, let's see:

You can prove a religion true by examining how it started.
Compare Islam and Christianity by way of an example, thus proving Christianity to be true
If Chistianity is a true religion then the Bible is literal and inerrant.
This is true because it says so in the Bible
If the Bible is literal and inerrant the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
Science has good evidence that it is much older.
The only way to solve this riddle is with the doctrine of "embedded age."
QED

 

[AV1611VET]

To be honest, I don't even think we're in the realm of Biblical questions anymore. This whole shebang has just gone out the window.

Sure it has.

This thread is a prime example of what can happen when one allows himself to get pulled out of the realm of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only way to solve this riddle is with the doctrine of "embedded age."
QED

The Bible has many paradoxes in It:

Paradox of the gospel: The idea that God's bad news is actually good news
Paradox of conquering by yielding: The idea that one can conquer by giving in
Paradox of finding rest under a yoke: The idea that one can find rest while carrying a burden
Paradox of reigning by serving: The idea that one can rule by serving others
Paradox of being made great by becoming small: The idea that one can become great by being humble
Paradox of being exalted when humble: The idea that one can be elevated by being humble
Paradox of becoming wise by being a fool: The idea that one can become wise by acting foolishly for Christ
Paradox of being made free by becoming a bondservant: The idea that one can be free by becoming a slave
Paradox of new life from death: The idea that one can be given new life after death
Paradox of joy in suffering: The idea that one can find joy in suffering

Jesus also taught some paradoxical ideas, such as in Mark 8:35, 9:35, and 10:43-44.

Source: AI Overview

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure it has.

This thread is a prime example of what can happen when one allows himself to get pulled out of the realm of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Even then...

 

[River Jordan]

Well, let's see:

You can prove a religion true by examining how it started.
Compare Islam and Christianity by way of an example, thus proving Christianity to be true
If Chistianity is a true religion then the Bible is literal and inerrant.
This is true because it says so in the Bible
If the Bible is literal and inerrant the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
Science has good evidence that it is much older.
The only way to solve this riddle is with the doctrine of "embedded age."
QED

That's the part about embedded age that I find the most interesting. At its heart is that yessiree the earth and universe really do look billions of years old (with God just creating everything that way even though it's all less than 10K YO).

So apparently scientists and the embedded age believers actually agree that the earth and universe look billions of years old.

Interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the part about embedded age that I find the most interesting. At its heart is that yessiree the earth and universe really do look billions of years old (with God just creating everything that way even though it's all less than 10K YO).

So apparently scientists and the embedded age believers actually agree that the earth and universe look billions of years old.

Interesting.

Anything in this universe that looks old, looks old because it is old.

What you're talking about is apparent age creation -- not embedded age creation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anything in this universe that looks old, looks old because it is old.

What you're talking about is apparent age creation -- not embedded age creation.

I have two questions, AV, and I only have these questions:

According to your theology, 'why' did God need or decide to create the Universe with age embedded into it? Is there a verse or passage of Scripture that describes 'why' He did this?

I'm just wondering.

Thanks.

 

[River Jordan]

Anything in this universe that looks old, looks old because it is old.

What you're talking about is apparent age creation -- not embedded age creation.

What's the difference?

Take the example of tree rings. Under embedded age God created the first trees with rings already in them, showing years/seasons that didn't really occur. Isn't that also apparent age, since by all outward appearances the trees appear older than they actually are?