JohnQuin wrote: When I was a YEC I used to think that it was a good sign that the human condition was slowly degrading.Oh well so much for that theory.I think that the number could have been used to signify the importance of individuals.Since the ages seem to decline post flood event you could speculate that there was a genetic issue with the gene pool being depleted. I think many a biologist might take issue at 900 year old hominids.It is this kind of issue that make me consider being a generic theist rather than a christian. There just seems to be too much hand waving.
Phanta wrote: Hi, depth.I believe you. That's fine. Thank you.Well, personally I am now more conflicted about whether the ages were picked to illustrate a highly ordered universe than when I first posted.My initial reaction is to state that what you have presented lacks the artfulness that suggests conscious intention that (I think) is present in the formula with which I began this discussion, in particular with the breaking away of Joseph from the pattern, but with his age referencing the prior three as he concludes the book of Genesis. It transcends the realm of simple math into an apparent poetry.Or not.The part of me that is now nagging in the direction of it being coincidence due to your presentation is the same part of me that nags when people tell me how their horoscopes turned out. Perfectly.Phanta
Phanta wrote: My worldview is that I wish to love people and be loved, and that I regret my failures.
Phanta wrote: I break from protocols of human exchange when I ask you to accept a deferral in responding to your question. I am in a tender place of struggle to simultaneously transcend baggage and orient myself to the illuminated consideration of ideas. Things are quite a bit darker in the box.While I am aware that I cannot jump over myself and others as though we do not exist as limited beings, I would love an opportunity to see what is possible when I am given space to explore the ideas I encounter in my studies less hindered by labels and presumptions.How do you feel about that?Thank you for considering my request. I understand if this is not an endeavor that this group wishes to accommodate.Phanta
IOW, you are an alabelist.
So, then you are undecided and confused, and are here to be exposed to views and the rationale for such views, rather than arguing for or defending certain views? Did I get it right?
I don't mind that at all. I sort of gathered that much from what seemed like you "dodging" my initial question. I just wanted you to be more explicit about it so I could be sure.
Phanta wrote: IOW, you are an alabelist.Hey wonderer. I guess I outed myself. Labeling and being labeled hasn't been working so well for me lately. It seems to make everyone involved small. As an acquaintance of mine once said, every time I join a group I have to learn to be humble all over again.