• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,155
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, they all believed they were right.

What's your point?
The trouble is, you have touched on a very sensitive point for fundamentalists, and it's not about the existence of God or the truth of the resurrection. There is no clear reason to suppose that the companions of Christ understood, in the immediate aftermath of what they took to be the resurrection, what it all meant theologically. Even the first recorded statement of what became known as the Atonement may not have been formulated until it appeared in Paul's epistle 30 years later. And that only weakly supports the specific theory of the Atonement being pushed by today's fundamentalists as essential to the faith, which in any case is not quite the same as that attributed by many scholars to the early church. As late as the third century Augustine was still struggling to give Apostolic authority to the doctrine of Original Sin on which it depends. You can be sure that if the least scrap of evidence of the kind you are asking for existed anywhere it would be speedily produced.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Free Thinking isn't Critical Thinking!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
23,699
11,082
The Void!
✟1,297,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The trouble is, you have touched on a very sensitive point for fundamentalists, and it's not about the existence of God or the truth of the resurrection. There is no clear reason to suppose that the companions of Christ understood, in the immediate aftermath of what they took to be the resurrection, what it all meant theologically. Even the first recorded statement of what became known as the Atonement may not have been formulated until it appeared in Paul's epistle 30 years later. And that only weakly supports the specific theory of the Atonement being pushed by today's fundamentalists as essential to the faith, which in any case is not quite the same as that attributed by many scholars to the early church. As late as the third century Augustine was still struggling to give Apostolic authority to the doctrine of Original Sin. You can be sure that if the least scrap of evidence of the kind you are asking for existed anywhere it would be speedily produced.

No clear reason? Even if it's historically of secondary nature, there is reason enough to think many early disciples of Jesus understood the essentials of "what it all meant theologically," BCP.

Let's not undersell what more than likely can be reasonably surmised.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,155
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No clear reason? Even if it's historically of secondary nature, there is reason enough to think many early disciples of Jesus understood the essentials of "what it all meant theologically," BCP.

Let's not undersell what more than likely can be reasonably surmised.
Surmise all you like, but it is telling that Traditional Christians still regard the nature of the Atonement as a Mystery.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,648
2,258
44
San jacinto
✟176,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are we not discussing objective truths about reality?
In a sense, but you're speaking about consensus agreements. As a philosophical skeptic, I don't believe objective truth is attainable from the ground up. All we can do is come to an agreed upon lie.
I mean, good luck trying to argue that the speed of light in a vacuum is not an objective truth. If you want to claim that what we're discussing here is fundamentally different, you'd have to be saying that the existence of God is not objectively true.

Now you are trying to shift the goalposts.

We are discussing whether a particular religious belief and the claims it makes are objectively true.
Sure, but worldviews change how the debate is seen.
But hey, if you want to admit that some religious belief is not factual, then we can stop right now, because I'll happily agree that any religious belief you can name is not factual.
I only know of two things I believe to be facts. Everything else is conjecture.
Lots of different things, you'd have to ask each individual skeptic, and it would be different for each one.

Do you think skepticism is a unified worldview like it's a religion or something? It's not.
I think there's a unified worldview among religious skeptics, perpetuated by biased perceptions like "they are all the same, we are all different" and the like
Ah, so now, finally, you decide to limit your definition of "skeptic" to one particular kind of skeptic.
Is any other kind relevant?
Would have been nice if you were clear about that from the start. You were not. You just said, "no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical."
Yeah, and religious skeptics are determined to be skeprical about religious claims.
In any case, what I said still holds. I claimed that the skeptics you were describing were contrarians who would reject any knowledge statment. And indeed, there are sources that describe "philosophical skepticism" as "radical doubt." SOURCE
Not quite, but sort of. It's not about being contrarian, though. It's about not wanting to believe anything that isn't warranted, and then despairing the conundrum of having to make assumptions to begin searching for knowledge.
Really? From my point of view it looks like you are taking one narrow subset of skepticism and using that to describe ANYONE who claims to be a skeptic.
Not at all, I'm taking "skeptic" at face value, and pointing out that metaphysical naturalist is a better fit for most self-proclaimed skeptics, and they rarely engage in skepticism towards their own metaphysics.
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a philosophical skeptic, more a "common sense skeptic." THIS is what best describes me, yet you are determined to portray all skeptics as THIS.
Half-hearted skeptic is what I'd call you, because "common sense" is highly subjective.
Do they also doubt that philosophical skepticism is valid?
In a way, philosophical skeptics are uncertain of the validity of Munchaussen's trilemma, but that doubt heightens their skepticism rather than diminishes it.
Yet that doesn't stop you from trying to portray all skeptics as holding a rather extreme version of skepticism.
I recognize that most self-proclaimed skeptics are selective about their skepticism, it's kind of my point.
It's worked just fine so far. Witness the device you are currently reading this reply on, which relies on reality working in a consistent way.
Regularity is sufficient to explain such success, no need for it to be entirely consistent.
No.

I've confined what I'll accept as true to that which can be tested in a repeatable way.
WHich is an unfalsifiable belief. How did you determine that leads to truth?

Can you give me any good reason why I should accept something as true if it is NOT testable in a repeatable way?
That's not how justification works. It's your belief, so it's up to you to justify it. Otherwise you've accepted something that is not testable as true. So how do you test that belief?
So you claim. But other people have made different claims about the nature of God.
I'm not interested in defending other people's conceptions of God. Blind men all describe an elephant differently, but if the variety of descriptions doesn't mean that the elephant doesn't exist.
How do I know which to believe? Is your claim correct, or is the correct claim one of the countless others made about the nature of God?
That's a decent question, but let's get your epistemics sorted before we start trying to justify things.
Gee, sure would be good if there was some system of investigation which we could use to TEST the validity of claims, wouldn't it?
You're using circular reasoning.
Okay, so an atheist has a completely different view of how reality works than a Christian.

Tell me, how does this difference manifest? I mean, does a Christian who is investigating reality use their religious beliefs instead of the scientific method? Do they get a different set of results? Do their different results work in a consistent way?
That's going to vary from person to person. For me, I take both the Biblical account and the scientific account as models, rather than generating independent truth.
View attachment 360025
So, when it comes to the sensible and realistic results of these different viewpoints, they don't matter.
They very much do, because it alters how the information is interpreted. They may not matter when we're talking purely about what the scientific method indicates, but they matter for things that science can't touch like morals meaning and purpose
Then what difference does it actually make?
an eternal one.
It's like the guy who thinks that all of reality is a computer simulation but he continues to live his life as though it's real, and NOT a simulation.
not quite.
No argument was presented. It was nothing more than a claim. "Such and such dates from this particular time." No argument, evidence, or reason was given as to HOW this determination was made, it was simply presented as a statement of fact.
Ah...well then that's not a very good source. The dating of the new testament is a thorn-field that is largely speculative, and tends to break down across presuppositional lines.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Free Thinking isn't Critical Thinking!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
23,699
11,082
The Void!
✟1,297,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Surmise all you like, but it is telling that Traditional Christians still regard the nature of the Atonement as a Mystery.

Despite what some modern Traditional Christians may think today, this doesn't explain why the earliest Christians were willing to die for Christ if they didn't really understand what it was they were to die for at the hands of the Romans.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
997
254
Singapore
✟251,414.00
Country
Singapore
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't know about the moon, but I do know about the geology of the Pacific Northwest. And it in no way is a reflection of a six day creation model nor of a global Noah flood.

God did not create in six days of 24 hours each. The word Day figurative as in first Day, second Day ... sixth Day. However, Genesis 1:14,18 said that God construct 24-hour day. The same word 'yom' is used both figuratively and literally, and the Scriptures don't explain it.

The Bible gives a brief summary of how the twenty-four hour day was created on the fourth day (or stage). “And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years" [Genesis 1:14]. This is the construction of day, night and years – which are based on the twenty-four hour timeframe we live in.

The Creator made a greater light (the sun), the lesser light (the moon) and the stars, then “set them (the sun, moon and stars) in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness” [Genesis 1:18]. For the first time in the creation process, the sun, moon and stars were used to create day and night as we know it; and this is different from the first day of creation, when God used the word day (to denote light) and night (to denote darkness). Observe how the same word, day, is used both figuratively and literally, and in different ways – similar to how the term, God's will, refers to a deliberate plan, permissive will or His will for our way of life. It demonstrates the point: Don’t read words only, understand the context.

The word Day as in first Day, second Day ... until sixth Day is figurative, it implies a stage, a phase, a timeframe. The creation took place in organized stages. At the first phase, light was created, followed by the sky, then the land and sea. Later, in distinct stages, God created the stars, vegetation, flying creatures, sea habitants, and finally, land animals, followed by man and woman. He did not create randomly, so to speak: He did not make the stars, then the land, some living creatures, and then create more stars again; instead, He proceeded in an orderly way.

Why did the Bible use the word Day instead of stage or phase? The word Day fits the prose of writing in religious scriptures. For different subjects, be it engineering, human literature, fiction, magazines or newspapers, there are different ways of writing. Chemistry books are written in a factual way, while consumer magazines use words to capture our interests and promote sales. In Chinese culture, the word day can refer to a physical day of twenty-four hours, to heaven or the deities that dwell in heaven -- and this is not a unique view; it is not unusual for earthly beings to look at the sky and moon, and wonder if there are gods that live far beyond the stars. In the Bible, in the context of creation, day alludes to a passage of time.

In the first chapter of Genesis, at the end of each Day, the Bible said, “There was evening and there was morning.” However, if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days? As well, notice the order: It was not morning, then evening. Instead, it was the reverse: Evening first, followed by morning. I believe that evening means the end of a stage, not sunset. And morning means the beginning of another phase, not sunrise. As well, it does not mean that the amount of time for each day was the same. To gather the land into one place would take much less time than to create the thousand kinds of sea creatures.

Moses said to the people, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” [Exodus 20:11]. But back then, could they have known that, in the context of creation, the word ‘day’ was figurative? Indeed, I believe that Moses would be amused at the thought of how thousands of kinds of living things – falcons, kingfishers, leopards, giraffe, hens, worms, ants, ant-eaters, cats and so on – would materialize suddenly in seventy-two hours, as if God had used CGI (computer graphics interface). Why would He rush to create at such a superfast pace? Instead, I believe the Lord planned out the ecology, constructed the atmosphere and elements, then the landscape and fauna. With these structures in place, He placed the sun and moon in place so the earth has day and night, then proceeded to design and make the lifeforms in the sea and on land. Likewise, for people that like to work on jigsaw puzzles, do they buy an already assembled product or do they enjoy connecting the pieces?

Excerpt from 'Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will' by Roman Ri
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,561
52,325
Guam
✟5,056,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Despite what some modern Traditional Christians may think today, this doesn't explain why the earliest Christians were willing to die for Christ if they didn't really understand what it was they were to die for at the hands of the Romans.

Let's take this a step further.

Why would they die for what they wrote, if what they knew what they were writing was a lie?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Free Thinking isn't Critical Thinking!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
23,699
11,082
The Void!
✟1,297,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let's take this a step further.

Why would they die for what they wrote, if what they knew what they were writing was a lie?

Yep. I agree. ... they wouldn't die for that either.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,561
52,325
Guam
✟5,056,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yep. I agree. ... they wouldn't die for that either.

Luke and Peter were pretty blunt about saying they wrote as eyewitnesses.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
 
Upvote 0

Aaron112

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2022
5,241
1,316
TULSA
✟99,493.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Let's take this a step further.

Why would they die for what they wrote, if what they knew what they were writing was a lie?
And one more step: billios of people die not knowing they believed lies all their lives, and by their own choice(s) ended up not ever learning the truth (about medicine, government, salvation, almost anything /everything) ... thus dying empty, in vain, grievous deaths even bringing God Sorrow.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,155
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Luke and Peter were pretty blunt about saying they wrote as eyewitnesses.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
In other words, he was recording the statements of eyewitnesses, but was not one himself.
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Where is your theory of the Atonement in that?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,561
52,325
Guam
✟5,056,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And one more step: billios of people die not knowing they believed lies all their lives, and by their own choice(s) ended up not ever learning the truth (about medicine, government, salvation, almost anything /everything) ... thus dying empty, in vain, grievous deaths even bringing God Sorrow.

Dying for something you read and believed is one thing.

Dying for having written it is another; especially if you knew what you wrote was fiction.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,561
52,325
Guam
✟5,056,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In other words, he was recording the statements of eyewitnesses, but was not one himself.

Um ...

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Where is your theory of the Atonement in that?

Huh?
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,155
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Despite what some modern Traditional Christians may think today, this doesn't explain why the earliest Christians were willing to die for Christ if they didn't really understand what it was they were to die for at the hands of the Romans.

All Traditional Christians, I believe, for many centuries. Your theory was invented by Calvin.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,561
52,325
Guam
✟5,056,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What "lie" are you talking about?

Let's take a made-up example:

Matthew 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Nero: Either you retract that, or I'll slit your throat.
Matthew: Get to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron112
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,155
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Dying for something you read and believed is one thing.

Dying for having written it is another; especially if you knew what you wrote was fiction.
How would they know it was fiction? I suppose you mean the creedal statement in Corinthians. Don't you think Paul believed what he wrote?
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

A Mohylite breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
530
250
18
Bible Belt
✟31,850.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And a real creationist would disregard scientists and go about their life on their own instead of trying to disprove evolution.
In that case, "science can take a hike"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,561
52,325
Guam
✟5,056,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How would they know it was fiction?

They who?

Matthew writes [A], claiming to be an eyewitness.
Matthew is told to recant of [A], under penalty of death.
Matthew refuses to recant, and he dies for it.

This isn't rocket science here.
 
Upvote 0