Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[pocaracas]

If you haven't been able to do this with me it is because your arguement are largly unsupported and weak.

I'd say it differently, like "talking to a brick wall".

Retard.. Peter himself could not read or write. So he used a scribe. that scrib's name was commonly refered to as saint mark. Meaning the book of mark is peter's gospel.
So peter's gospel was indeed included.

Here's a crazy idea... Whoever was Peter's scribe wrote the gospel of Peter.
Whoever Mark was, wrote a gospel as if it was told by Peter, or however you can claim him to have been his scribe...

Who would know the difference?

anyone who knew peter could not read or write like all other fishermen at the time... so to assign him this accomplishment would cast doubt on the authorship. it was commonly known only a couple of the disciples including judas could read or write. So why not give credit where credit is due? Mark penned the gospel of peter, as the church records mark being peter's number one disciple.

RETARD! See?, I can do it too!
The written text was not to be provided to the locals who might have had access to Peter. It was to be spread out in other provinces.
Your "commonly known" would have been totally unknown more than 20 miles away from Jerusalem.
I think you have a bit of a problem with timescales...

dear not smart person.. Paul's church... did not start till the reformaition nealy 1600 years after the church of peter had been in power.

Oh yeah... Paul didn't write letters to several locations explaining how his view of the church was to be.

read the vulgate those letters have been highly modified or even in some cases excluded infavor of other books. there are about 1/2 a dozen different books in the vulgate that are not apart of the holy bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_t...in_Vulgate

So for 1600 years you had peter's church and it had it's own bible. alot of which was changed as the popes saw fit as they went along. the reformation happened and the holy bible was compiled only from those manuscripts that where around when the church first started. meaning they cut about a 1/3 of edits newly found supposedly old books and laws set forth by people who claim the authority of the apostles.

Go back to school. Your History is a bit shoddy.
"
The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 AD); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419).[125] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
"

Congrats on pulling 1600 years out of your ass.

what did you think I would say? I've shared from like week 2 and revisited this message at least a few dozen times. We are talking about the God of the bible and how the bible says God communicates. Nothing I experienced is not already been established in scripture even though at the time I experienced this stuff I had no idea, as my picture of faith was alot like yours.

Your picture of faith was never anything like mine.
I was never indoctrinated into belief, like you probably were by your mom.
I look at your tale and I see a human brain doing its thing.
Do you suppose that those who wrote the instructions you came to find in the bible, perhaps had a brain similar to yours and first went through something similar to yourself and then wrote it down? They used their interpretation of the event. A mythical interpretation, as was to be expected from folk who were not aware that the brain produces thoughts and has several layers and error correction mechanisms that can go awry.
You.... like most people... you also don't know these things and thus also use your own interpretation of what happened in your mind.

There are billions of christians all over the world. did you honestly think your experience with God or lack there of was any sort of bench mark? meaning do you think God ignoring you and the people like you was the same all across the world? This religion has thrived for over 2000 years for a reason.. because God makes good on promises unique to christianity mainly direct contact with it's members. That sport is why I do not need faith. My faith has turned into experience and knowledge as we go on. We only need the smallest amount of faith to have God introduced into our lives. then we must simply be faithful to God for that relationship to grow.

No, Drich, that's not the reason it has thrived for so long.
There are too many reasons to list them here, but they're mostly a combination of politics, ignorance, indoctrination and imposition.

Here, I'll help you find the error in your judgment. You won't see it as an error, because you're thick, but I'll show it to you nonetheless.

In these 3 paragraphs when you speak of god, you always say "god of the bible". That is your problem.
You see... if a god does exist, then god is god. period. simple.
God is that which created the cosmos, that which supports all existence.

and IF he does? then is not the oppsite true? which is why you said the reason my teaching is not commonly taught is because it is not consistent with human philosphy!?!??! which leaves what.. It is consistent with the will of God for us.

Let's try to reason a bit, here.
If our planet had an outer creator, but which was not the creator of the Cosmos, then maybe... maybe your god of the bible exists and is this creator of the Earth.

If there is a god creator of the Cosmos, even if there is a multiverse, then that god has to be a form of the god of the philosophers.

If there isn't any god, the human psyche could easily have conceived the god of the bible, given the parallels found in earthly kings and emperors. The human mind would have also have come up with the god of the philosophers. And here we'd be, all the same.

It doesn't matter which book describes this god, for it is an objective reality.
When you cling so strongly to the "god of the bible", you are telling us that your god is a [comic] book character.... and, as such, fictional. Every time you have to support god with the book, you repeat that he's fictional.

only if you BLINDLY and closed mindedly assume God can not exist. you said that yourself. How ever if you took the bible as a road map and followed it and then found God as described... then what? then you would obviously refer to him and point to the bible as the way to find the God the bible describes. as he is not the God of the reformation movement he is not the God of islam he is not the God of the catholic church... thus you can not find him if you follow those religions. I am consistently representing God and the methodology to him in a way true to what I myself has experienced.

You are consistently, persistently, presenting something which is known to be a way to convince a mind of anything. Most people who apply that method will become convinced of whatever it concerns. You think you've arrived at some Universal door to god, but you just stumbled upon a psychological trait most of us share.
Knowing this, that method you propose fails, as I understand how it would ensnare my mind and cause it to have a faulty perception of reality.

Here's the thing. If you don't assume you will find nothing and at the same time do not expect to find ABC... Then what you do find will amaze you. as you will know what you are experience is not of you. it is not being generated by you nor controlled by you. He comes and goes like the wind. but when he is there you will know it is not anything comming from you nor anyone else.

Just as I said above... your perception of reality is clearly mangled and you are interpreting your own brain function as being something coming from the outside.

The god you call "god of the bible" is just a character in a book.

untill he shows up in life right where the bible says do and look.

Correction, "shows up in your mind".

At best, it is akin to a highly advanced extraterrestrial.
The god so-called "god of the philosophers" is a near-unassailable edifice, which then takes a bit of faith to make the leap into the god of Christianity, but people do it and live on.

and there are really people who live it. not just faith, but the holy Spirit as promised by the bible.

Or so they say and are convinced of. Just like you, they have their perception mangled.

That you can't understand how vastly superior to the "god of the bible" the "god of the philosophers" is, shows just how stunted you are.
Go dream+life coincidences!

says the douche bag who thought paul fathered the church in aramaic. What is stunted is that you have been factually wrong in every aspect you have chosen to repersent the bible in and the church in and yet you stand here proudly going over your same conclusion/same summary as if I did not just obliterate everything you thought you know about the bible the church and it's history!!!

This kills me.. I just show you 2+2=4 and you are trying to wrap things up as if you ignored everything I did to prove your 2+2=5 wrong you are still extolling your orginal conclusion... talk about a lazy broken intellect! If I took all the points of your argument away and showed you where wrong in every aspect of church history you cared to explain, how then can you maintain any sort of intellectual integrity buy summing up with the same conclusion that you would have used is your theories of the church where true?!?!

(To Gae Blogona) This is why you all call me stupid or inepth or ignorant... because you/mr thunder cat can summarily dismiss or not read the paragraphs I used obliterate you. after all how stupid must you be to loose an arguement against a guy who keeps misspelling simple words? How much easier would it be to just get a consensus that I am the problem rather than re examine your entire world view like mr. thundercat would have to do if he were an intellectually honest person.

Clearly, your reading comprehension is very subpar... no wonder you needed 25 years to study a single book...
If you tried to read what people write, instead of reading what you think they write... then you might have a point... but no... go go.

There you go again.... "god of the bible" this, "god of the bible" that... sheesh!

what's the matter sport? trying to trivialize what you can not refute? are you in 6th grade? are you so f-ing stupid that you do not know you started this line of reasoning by segregating the God of the bible with the God of catholicism? Thereby making it necessary for me to make this distinction when ever I speak so as not to confuse the difference between the two? Then you have the nerve to criticize me for making a distinction you forced in the conversation?!? Are you stupid or again intellectually dishonest?

I didn't force you to do anything.
You're the idiot who thinks that the god represented in the bible is, somehow, a real entity that depends on us going through a known psychological fault in order to accept it as real.
I've told you this quite a few times in the past few years... but you trundle on, as expected, because your brain has fallen for it.

It doesn't need to be almighty... It is the source of everything around you, everything in all of existence.
Can you top that with your puny "god of the bible"?

no you are wrong the catholic God demands it to be an omni max god. It says so in their creed:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p3.htm

Did you.... did you even read what is in that link? It only says that he's omnipotent.

The "god of the philosophers" does not concern itself with the problem of evil at all. Evil is a human construct. God merely permeates his own existence with love. And humans can draw upon that love or not. Evil arises through humanity not partaking in the love provided.

citation on a 'god philosopher' example/name

Hahahaha!!! Ed Feser is your man. I think he's wrong at a basic level, but everything is then quite well structured.

Adam and Eve are, at best, allegory.

for small minded people who can not think outside their little box, yes.

LOL!!

If you want to know how God assimilates evolution into a 7 day literal creation... just ask.. and again all the paradoxes the catholic reading leaves including a science is correct or religion is correct gets fix by God in a three paragraph explanation.

Bloody hell, man... I don't care about the way you came up to stretch or shrink the word "day" into whatever amount of time it needs to be done. It's bollocks retroactively made to fit the bible. Reality doesn't work like that.

The god of the philosophers is also consistent with whatever science finds to be reality.

not according to the catholic church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C..._evolution
The church recently had to go netural meaning it holds no position on either... meaning the church, the catholic church refuses to back it's god and it's bible because it can not reconcile what science has to say.
So again you are wrong.

Hey-sus you ever get tired of being wrong so much?

huh?! from your link, again:
""
Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains how evolution proceeds. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach.
""

Your "god of the bible" is just the personification of a cosmic king. Wholly conjured up by people, drawn from people's experiences, emotions, commands, desires...

then why again is this God's two laws not taught thus dropping the need for the laws of morality?

Because morality is more complex than just 2 laws.

Why aren't christian's known for only having two governing rules in their churches?

Because people can't be ruled over with only two rules.

why is the catholic church so over burdened with rules you can sin without knowing it?

Because people need lots of rules and cases to behave as the leaders want.

why do most churches follow the catholic model even after the reformation if again the God of the bible was modeled off of what people were and wanted?

Because there are many different kinds of people and not all want the same thing... in case you've never noticed...

Here's the thing sport... maybe the reason the God of the bible's want and will do not line up with the psychology of the people is because he is not of the people. If God where an independent entity would it not stand to reason his will be different from our own? Would this gap in "morality' not be evidence of two different sources of religious belief?

Sadly for your view, god's morality lines up perfectly with the morality of the patriarchy.

said the douche that just learned that romans primary spoke and wrote greek in the first century in the middle east.

Try again. Romans spoke and wrote Latin. Some in the middle East learned Greek and used both Latin and Greek side by side. Official Empire business, especially that to do with the military, was solely performed in Latin.

NOT SOME IDIOT READ THOSE 5 Pages of reference AGAIN!!!
Latain was the region areound the city of rome EVERYWHERE ELSE SPOKE and wrote KOINE GREEK!!!!! in the first century!!!

Curiously, that's not what the sources say. Of course.
I know that Latin was used in Portugal, in Spain, in France, in Italy and in Romania. It was so used that these countries now have what are called Latin, or Romance, languages. So... "everywhere else"... methinks you're exaggerating.
And those wiki links say that there was a very specific border between the Latin world and the Greek world, the Balkans.

I think you need to learn to write a bit more properly.

Local middle Easterns spoke and wrote Greek as a second language.

then why was the septuagint the jewish bible only copy written in greek?
Aramaic was the basterdized language.. not greek Greek was the base from which everyone had incommon.

Because the book had the purpose of being shared among different populations.
You're not very good at spotting propaganda, are you?

That's what I learned. Thank you for pushing me towards that info.

you did not learn that from me, that's the bullshite you came here with.. You learned this from me:
[...]

After the decentralization of political power in late antiquity, Latin developed locally in the Western provinces into branches that became the Romance languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian. In the early 21st century, the first or second language of more than a billion people derived from Latin.[12] Latin itself remained an international medium of expression for diplomacy and for intellectual developments identified with Renaissance humanism up to the 17th century, and for law and the Roman Catholic Church to the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_...man_Empire

Everywhere else, he said...

Aramaic was not an offical language. it was the scribblings of malcontents and barbarians. as such there were or are surviving text in aramaic but they are know translations from the greek. many speculate the aramaic was translated from the greek as a means to speak to the aramaic only as an outreach.

There he goes again...

Aramaic was the de facto spoken language in the region of Jerusalem.

citation!!!!!! douche bag citation!!!!!!
I've proven you wrong 10 ways to sunday Show me something that supports you bull shite or shut your mouth unless you are intentionally trolling.

So be it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_o...s_of_Jesus:
"The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language. Most scholars agree that during the early part of first century Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all natives of Galilee and Judea."


25 years of study, he said...

Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't even exist.
For local writing, it is clear that some used Greek characters for conveying the sounds of Aramaic. For more widespread communication, proper Koine Greek was used.

it's like talking with a 4 year old who doesn't even understand english let alone a different langage he just learned about. Dummy.. Aramaic is an amalgamation of several different languages.. the reason greek can be found in it was because that specific dialect (galeean dialect contained both hebrew words and greek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_dialect

So who spoke aramaic in that region? primarily jews. the non jewish members of the empire which out numbered the jews in the region spoke greek sport. So no aramaic not eve t he galilean dialect was spoken more than the greek. because the jews spoke greek and the none jews spoke greek.. who only spoke aramaic? those who only spoke or work in the jewish community and was uneducated. as they could not get work from anyone else.

Here, I'll put that citation here for you again:
"Most scholars agree that during the early part of first century Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all natives of Galilee and Judea."

no back then they had access to the people who where there. which in that culture is far more believable than anything that could have been written

No, they didn't. That is such a fallacy.

is english your 3rd langage? you are not even using the word fallacy correctly.

Fallacy, faulty reasoning... yep, I'm pretty sure I'm using it right...

with a 3% literacy rate people distrusted anything written down because they themselves could not verifyit. which is why personal intergity was so important back then because your word was your literal bond meaning if you were as dishonest as you have been in this post, you would most certain be cast outside the city and treated like a theif because you would soon be one as you could not support yourself any other way.



So look at it this way.. you got a letter written to you in my loose hand in korean meaning no google translate. you know to guys who can read it but one you hate/he hates you and the other you trust. both see it and both tell you to do two different things according to the letter. who do you trust? (don't wander off, stay with in the parameters of the story) trust the hated guy, trust you can figure out the letter you can't read/know nothing about or trust your buddy who is an upstanding person?

Every Other human on the planet trust the trust worthy guy. Why? because the other two are not options. Hence in a illertare soceity a man's word is far more trustworthy than anything written.

So?... the people were trusting the writings of someone they didn't know and had no way of knowing.

Most people never moved farther than 10 miles away from their homes, during their whole lifetime. And the propaganda was aimed at these people who couldn't fact check.

never heard looked up the requirements of being a roman citizen huh? may look up the term mission trip or missionary, then ask someone if any of that was required of the members of the church? Then look at history more specifically the pilgrimage required of the jews to goto the temple for various high holy days and cermonies... the jews would be compelled to travel hundreds of miles. Just look what happened when Christ was born herod commanded that all boys 2 and under be killed. To save your son you would not travel more than 10 miles? God you look stupid to anyone in the know. you just repeat anything men like crowder or erhman say without thought or research. it is like you all think quoting them is permission to turn off your brains!

Not even going to try to address all that crazy...

And it carried a message that resonated with the poor peasants.

retard it also resonated with the rich and affluent as well because wasn't it the emperor Constantine the Great that made christianity the official religion of rome??? how much more affluent does one need to be than the emperor of rome at that time?

Wow... mixing up 1st and 3rd centuries, here? A lot happened in between.
25 years of study, he says...
Can't even have a decent timeline in his head...

Gae bologna...

Again can you honestly see all the ignorance and errors left by mr thundercats? everytime I left a quotation it was because we had this discussion several times before he lost horribly and still yet he was returning to his orginal position despite the evidence!!!

So what will his response be? a personal attack. to discredit the messenger because he can not directly attack the message. and because he is liked his assessment of me will be what sticks because the alternative is to believe me and what I have to say which Demands a man of integrity to reexamine his whole world view. This guy and people like him would rather be outraged and stand in the filth of their own ignorance and proclaim someone else has their deffency than to admit their own failures. Why? again to give an inch demands a re examination of your world view. And you know it is easier to say I am stupid than to admit you are and always have been foolishly wrong, about the church about God about any of it.

So honestly look and ask yourself is drich really wrong or am I simply not wanting to face facts!

Drich is wrong. Definitely.