Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Drich]

Drich,

The Jesus Seminar, which consisted of over a dozen of the most prominent Biblical scholars and dozens of other contributing scholars, coded the entire Gospel of John with black beads (used to vote on whether the group of scholars thought that a particular phrase was actually spoken by the historical Jesus), which means that they believed that not a single sentence in the entire gospel of John was, in fact, spoken by the historical Jesus.

Do you agree with their scholarly analysis and conclusions?  If not, why not?

Hell no.. Why? they stacked the deck.. Or rather you stoped reading/thinking when you saw prominate bible scholars... when in fact:

The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 50 critical Biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk that originated under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[1][2] The seminar was very active through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 21st century.

Members of the Seminar used votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth.[3] They produced new translations of the New Testament and apocrypha to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports: The Five Gospels (1993),[4] The Acts of Jesus (1998),[5] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).[6] They also ran a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Do you see the problem?

of course not otherwise you woud not have posted this tripe.

In addition to your 50 professional scholars you have 100 laymen which could mean reformed preacher but it could also mean atheist historian. which even if all 50 professionals agree Jesus said abc your 100 laymen could vote no he did not meaning you would have a 2/3 majority vote that jesus did not say abc when everyone of note could have said the opposite.

The fact that they would isolate john and not address the connective scriptures john shares with the others is very dubious. This whole thing stinks of someone setting up a 'trap' who doesn't know enough about the subject matter to make it look legit.

Meaning you a person ignorant of the bible and how it works as well as how the bible was compiled and of the manuscripts from which the book of John was taken, are desperatly trying to disqualify me and my knowedge base by putting what I said and believe up again something you think is an authority that would normally supperceed any personal discovery by the nature or volume of "certified scholars" involved.

Now either again you stopped reading and thinking when you saw the 50 scholars or you are too stupid to see how 100 more people with o qualifications at all could taint anything the scholars would have to say just by sheer number!

Example lets say that group ws ask does the bible say homosexuality a sin? the scholars if they were worth their salt would all say yes. undeniably. however the layeity is not bound to all say yes are they? (look at the churches who have gay preachers) depending o the layeity the vote could be 100 people saying no sin here verse 50 identifying sin and this "jesus seminar' would declare homosexality not a sin..

So no, I do not give two squirts about a consensus of people who can not all be vetted. Too many varibles and if you agree with them just because they are telling you what you want to hear?!?!? Then you and the brain washed ignorant one. From you I should get a kudo for this and not rebuttal, but yes Drich you are right. I was not aware of the 100 other random people they made apart of this process.

[Mister Agenda]

You 'it could have happened this way' anything, Drich. Do you have evidence that atheist laymen overrode the critical Biblical scholars? Do you have evidence that ANY of the laymen were atheists? In 1985 if the laymen were picked completely randomly from the general population, you'd expect one or two to be atheists; but the term 'laymen' in this case seems to indicate 'non-clergy members of a church. You've done your homework, so it should be easy for you find out the actual tallies. It would be interesting in any case to learn which passages were agreed to be historical by all 50 scholars and were yet overridden by the laymen. I'd bet it was more likely to be the other way around, the 100 laymen would be more likely to think a passage was historical than the scholars.

[Drich]

I've been out smarted?

indeed you have been if you think slavery is not alive and well, and that you think your collective pop morality makes you 'better' than God. Actually you have demonstrated you have been quite foolish in many things you observe and believe, but a direct confrontation is not required to resolve those.

Yah, you keep posting what you think is reality Drich.

indeed I will, but I will also have you note when I post what is real, there is also a point of reference to support it. unlike your assertions based on nothing more than your word. keep that in mind when you try and trivialize what I say. over the BS you believe.

So.. you were trying for... what again with the link to that movie?

the only link i provided was to literal parable of Christ illustrated to music.

Oh, 'Teaching' people with parables. SO you weren't trying to use the movie to actually do something, like, add evidence to back up your position?

do you not understand what evidence is? or do not understand how to illiterate or draw parallels between a principle and something the student may be familiar with?
It's like in star trek when a huge complex problem is diagnosed with a ton of techno babble, and then explained with some everyday thing that anyone could understand..

Why accept , or not accept as the case maybe, a movie even if it presents facts?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe for the same reason I wouldn't present mathew Broderic in 'War Games' as evidence to support any claims I might make about the 80's cold war situation.

then what you are saying is your mind is closed to any information that does not come formatted a certain way.. meaning anyone you approved of could say anything and so long as matthew broderick was not apart of the delivery system you would just gobble up everything they told you... no independent thought no ability to take information from something like a parable and apply it to your own personal situation. nothing. just processing information from places like schools or people you like to listen to.. Why are atheists known as thinkers if they can not take parable and apply the information it is meant to diliver and dicard what is not needed?

Generally because 90% of most movies are simply works of fiction Drich.

P-A-R-A-B-L-E sport! Parable, that is How Jesus taught. He often recorded teaching by using stories and illustrative works to draw parallels between complex things and things people could understand. I do and have done since day one the very same thing! I am proud to be able to walk in his foot steps in my own mordern way!

I in the same vein understand I used Arthur C Clarke quote: third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
as my point of reference and not just the movie.. You just happen to only pick up on the movie bit because appearently you are ignorant of the larger work that inspired the movie.
It is not my fault you don't seem to be well read/are unaware of aurther C clark..

If you really want to add things that support your position/argument you'd be better to use things like actual research about the subject from actual experts?

I did dumb ass you are just not smart enough to see the alien movie took clarke's third law and made it into a movie. Not to say I did not take elements of the more recent movie to help the idea assimilate better but in my mind this was a clarke quote and no one was trying to use the movie as evidence. what a simpleton you must be if all you see is a movie.

Again taking clarks broader understanding of technology and magic (probably because he lived in a fulcrum of time where he saw magic being replaced by the explainations that come with technology) I simply applied this to the people of the bronze age. If this where true during the industrial revolution, how much more true would it be from someone who lived in the bronze age facing a being who is light years more advanced than even we are now?

That my slow witted friend is the point I was making, which was a major plot tool in "prometheus". To which if you saw the movie you could see how/why someone from the bronze age would see an engineer as a god. (cave paintings even depicted men worshiping the engineers.) Again why argue arthur c clarke's three rules when the whole thing has been put into a 100 million dollar production and wonderfully illustrated? Something even the dumbest among you can understand, even if they can not reason how why the reference was used. (the reason being you all have been taught to accept information rather than to derive your own conclusions from data provided.)

Again, Not using the whole movie and the aliens as proof of God, as only a slow minded person who never heard of a parable would assume that. no but what if we just used the bit that shows Clarke's thrid law in action where a super advanced being is being worshiped as God because his technology all seems like supernatural ablity.. So now that we have a visual of how that can work we can roll that into the actual historical events and say imagine if God where not a being of magic but one of technology and understanding even we do not understand.. so then how much more 'magic' would God be to a bronze age or an iron age man?

Subsequently who says God has to be magic or supernatural?

Again, if God used real magic or technology, would the writers of the bible know the difference? Could you in this day and age tell the difference?

So what if God's supernatural ability is science and technology based? That my slow friend was the point I was making. Because nothing n the bible says God has to be magic.. only that we do not understand his ways. which simply could mean he is far more advanced than we will ever be. Even so, it does not make him any less God. all it does it take away the broken idea that we worship a wizard which again is in no part of the bible. which is contary to what we know of the universe he has created, which beggs the question again... Why create something you have to move supernaturally though all the time? would not a creator make his creation naturally follow the will and design of the creator? If so what would the universe look like if God was a deity of science and technology... or how would the universe differ than it stands today if God was a God of science and technology???

I would say it would be identical.

That my little buddy is the whole point to the movie reference, not the movie or what it's plot point make, but the idea that science look like magic and because a bronze age man sees magic does not make magic cannon. therefore the idea of God can open up and again assimilate everything science has to say about how this universe works...

But your little mind was reminded about a movie you saw,and it prevented you from seeing anything else because you did not see the bigger picture I laid out rather because I used a trivial method of illustrating a point you though you saw an intellectual deficiency. Shame on you for ignoring content to try and create a personal attack.

Oh goody! Now I see we're getting into slavery appologetics.

says a 2%er who whole live is dependant on modern day slavery.

So... you can't see 'Wage slave' as not being synonymous with actual slavery?

hey-sus chirsto.. How stupid can you be.. do you not have google??
Again retard you are thinking of chattel slavery and even then they made money despite what historical revisionist may say or think. in fact it benefitted slave owners to pay their slaves just enough to by their freedom after 5 to 10 years. why? because the work was back breaking and they would usually be spent after such a tour, and they would take the saves buy back money and buy a fresh new model and either let the old slave go or put him in charge of the new one.. That my stupid friend is how slavery worked in america on most small farms and plantations.. The larger ones rotated slaves regardless so the paid them less but in return offered better conditions, food, access to family and or women.
but like the lik says they made money just not a living wage, their livelihoods was apart of their work/they did not get paid enough to choose their living situation it was assigned.. and they were allowed to make meger side money by selling things they made grew or as bonouses for high production numbers or rates.
https://www.quora.com/Did-slaves-ever-get-paid
https://www.historyextra.com/period/slave-labour/
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommat...f/slavery/
here is an egyptian example of slaves getting paid. which coinsides witht he rules of the bible:
http://blogs.nature.com/houseofwisdom/20...laves.html

Educate yourself before you come at me 1/2 cocked.. post a few links to articles or books that support you ideas. don't think what you think you know is real sport. 1/2 of the crap you think you know is revisionist propaganda. it allows you to think you are better than you ancestors or God.. When in fact you are far worse because your whole existence depends on modern slaves and because you refuse to acknowledge it, there are no rules to govern how badly these slaves are treated. (sometimes right here in the USA/Eg there are no labor laws for children and certain crops, there are no mandated breaks there is no minimum wage there is no over time for anyone working in the agricultural industry.) meaning those strawberries you like this time of year or those grapes can be hand picked by a 9 yearold at 4 am till midnight the following day.. (her and everyone else in her family!)
Hour and job restrictions depend upon your age and the job you are doing. The rules are the same for all youth, including migrant workers. Agricultural employment hour restrictions include: ... Youth younger than 12 can work in agriculture on a farm only if the farm is not required to pay the Federal minimum wage.
Youth in Agriculture - Other - OSHA
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/youth/agriculture/other.html

Yes they do get paid but not a living wage unless everyone works.. but to you that's not a slave,so enjoy those strawberries this year!

You sport are the monster here you are the immoral one even by your own pop culture standards if you simply open your eyes to the truth of how your life is supported and maintained!

What next? You'll be saying that the prison system is just 'The state' keeping people as slaves at it's whim?

red herring.

As I've seen others try and defend the slavery written about in the book (And fail misserably) I suppose you'll feel the need to now choose that hill to die on.

this is not a new subject for me on this web site sport. I have taken every single member here worth noting and not one came out on top. (why do you think no one has jumped on your band wagon??/ isn't that usally the case? a christian defends biblical slavery and that is a call to the wolves to all attack?) have you noticed you a lone wolf here? do you want to know why? because they came at me with the revisionist BS you are leading with and they like you did not know the true history of slavery nor did they understand their dependance on it, which they do now. meaning ANYTHING THEY SAY... is an indictment against their own hypocrisy as being the direct beneficiaries of slave made products. which you yourself are apart of!

Since it would seem that no one can disparage your book of holies.

you can try... but again if you use the same measure against yourself, you wind up inditing your own hypocritical self!

A book which, as you yourself just posted, was written by people who weren't smart enough or developed enough to have or use currency.
But currency was being used by the many empires and cultures around them?

Retard intelligence is not the measure needed here. It is terminology. the question is are the people of the bronze age in a position technologically to use the correct terminology to correctly and scientifically describe what they witnessed? the answer there is no. then the question should be does that lack of sophistication matter? again the answer is no. why? because we have the tools and terminology to make this leap or assessment for them! Besides the very last generation, who would benfit from the correct identification and processes used by God, if indeed they could be scientifically maped? NO ONE!. Meaning up to this point 4000 years of people would not understand anything written about God till he came back.. why would God allow the bible to alienate 4000 years of people to speak to the very last generation? why not have it written simply and open enough to grow with the people as they grow? If you where God would this not be the better way?

Yah, maybe I'm miss speaking and that's not what you're meaning at all.

you are misspeaking because you are not a big picture person. you are a small box thinker. i have demonstrated you only think of how things affect you and how your world is directly affected. You are unable to see how something written 3000ish years ago must tie all generation in the arch of man's time on earth together, under one god. no you can only see the gap, between the understanding the author had and what you able to understand. Never mind the billions in between who were saved by this book and where given over to God as a direct result to how this book was thoughtfully compiled.

Oh! There's something I missed.

indeed. you do miss quite a bit.

"With out slavery we'd still be monkeys in trees."

I am rather hesitant to guess as to what you're trying to allude to with this.

If I had the same propensity to be as wrong as you are and to the degree which you habitually wrong I too would be hesitant to guess anything as well.

Here's the key sport.. If you don't know something ask a question.

I'll go with you trying to infer that all societies as they grown up, developed etc over the many millenia have engaged IN actual slavery so as to build themselves up into the power houses that they were?
Because then you make the claim that with out the things you're then equating back to beig the same as slavery our society would collapse etc.

How about their never was is or will be a society not built and currently maintained on slavery. If you do not think this is true name a proper nation that does not have any roots in slavery.

Meh, just the fact you're apologetic to your holy books stance on slavery is enough for me to walk away from this part of the conversation.
Is good to see more of your thoughts come out, though.

if you walk away from this conversation is will be for the very same reason your peers are not coming to your rescue... You can see the writing on the wall and you know your position is untenable.

From my side of the screen your words are not painting a very appealing picture of your mind.

Not at work.

that's because you hate God in favor of a general consensus of the sin you find acceptable to excuse and live with or better yet the term "morality" sums it up. you hate God infavor of your own subjective pop culture version of 'morality.' rather than acknowledge all sin is bad and seek redemption for the sins you are a slave to.

---

You 'it could have happened this way' anything, Drich. Do you have evidence that atheist laymen overrode the critical Biblical scholars? Do you have evidence that ANY of the laymen were atheists? In 1985 if the laymen were picked completely randomly from the general population, you'd expect one or two to be atheists; but the term 'laymen' in this case seems to indicate 'non-clergy members of a church. You've done your homework, so it should be easy for you find out the actual tallies. It would be interesting in any case to learn which passages were agreed to be historical by all 50 scholars and were yet overridden by the laymen. I'd bet it was more likely to be the other way around, the 100 laymen would be more likely to think a passage was historical than the scholars.

Again laymen out numbered the professionals.. and it was a one to one vote meaning the douche bag guy off the street vote counted as much as the scholar.

We already know depending on how the culture is, non vested people always go with pop culture. meaning no one is voting against lgbt rights despite the bible says,no one is going to tell women they do not have a choice because the bible says ABC.. no one is going to tell parents to beat their kids asses because the bible said so unless their whole career is tied up into accurately describing scripture. NOT for a specific denomination but in general practice.

So no it's not a what if sport, it is a tainted well from the start. The layeity out number the professionals 2 to 1 and their votes count the same. the same layeity who sees themselves with no reason to honor the bible as it is written, and everything to loose if they are voting like a 'bigotted races who beats his wife and kid.

So just like I have no proof all vote as an atheist would you have n proof the culture did not influence their vote, as such this point of reference as being a legit source to discern what is and is not scriptural is not nor ever can be seen as real reference material. this at best is commentary stacked in favor of of the culture rather than have any read standing in the exegetical community at large.

[EgoDeath]

I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible

The issue here is, there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence for adaptation, natural selection and thereby evolution.

Evolution is a fact of life. There is no debate to be had here.

So what are we to do with Catholicism?

[downbeatplumb]

I do not have a preconception. I just do not believe what theists have claimed.

surly you understand not everything in your life you have proof for is testable by science right?? Science has no idea what consciousness is yet there is not a waking moment you do not enjoy it.

Consiousness/brain activity can be monitored with scientific equipment.

We can't even say for sure how love works... yes some try to attribute to chemical changes in the brain but love is far more binding that a chemical bath, the same is true with hate. That is just in your own little field of experiences.

And yet love and hate are both well understood both in their cause, effect and even the reason s for their evolution.

That said God does not require endless faith either. God gives us all a mustard seed's worth of faith. a small amount where we choose to put it in. whether that be with God or with in this case man.

Not me, I have never believed for a second in a god.

People have been polarized no in betweens when it come to church and science. to the point they make movies about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Not_Dead_(film)

This is a film that describes much of the scholastic climate towards people of faith and 'science. where a man of faith is ridiculed and fails his class because he will not deny God, and while you may try and poo poo on the level of personal hate the professor has toward people of faith, this is how a large portion of the world see people of science. something you claim does not exist.

This film is a propaganda that misrepresents both science and education. particularly in one of the most heavily theocratic countries in the world. Remember that in the US it is the atheists who face discrimination from the theists.

propaganda for whom? The move give christians hope in their belief so they can coexist with people who think less of them for their beliefs. how is that propaganda? or is that a term you do not understand? is it ow just a pop culture word that means one sided?

It is blatant pro Christian propaganda that perpetuates a few lies. First it tries to paint Christians as the oppressed when in fact in the US where the film is set they are not only the majority but the countries main oppressor.
It tries to paint denial of god as hatred of god. I don't hate god. I don't think there is one.

again this may not repersent everyone but many do experience this and feel this way. Look at this web site and just look at how you all react to christians no matter how nice they are. Catholic Lady being a good example of a well meaning well tempered person who came here looking for people she could simply be friends with, and look at how she was received and ultimately left! you can't tell me people of science are not polarized in their belief. if you believe this you are lying to yourself.

I liked Catholic Lady, we got on well. She was always considered and thoughtful even though I thought she was wrong in her beliefs she was able to support them to a much higher level than some here and I don't think you could characterise how I interacted as abrasive. You get what you give with me.

Your "collecting data" seems to be all anecdote and nothing that actually consistutes anything even beginning to resemble evidence.

caucasian please.. in the realm of science (what yo experience and what every other douche (who doesn't know how their computers work/or anything else) you consumers you witnesses of 'science' don't lend yourselves to put thought ito anything. YOU ARE TOLD BY PEOPLE LIKE ME WHAT TO THINK BECAUSE WE SAID SO. fancy yourself a think man do ya squirt? Show me YOUR Work on evolution (not what others said or think show me the results of your ORIGINAL EXPERIMENTS the work you've done on matter and energy show me something other than your consumer status and I might be inclined to agree you have contributed something in the way of thought. Otherwise know there is nothing different between you and some little post high school kid sitting in a class room being indoctrinated somewhere in china or north korea.. You are taught be design how to only accept information if it come prepackaged a certain way it must be vetted and certified through certain channels.. which is why the news kept saying it was the uneducated who elected trump. meaning it was everyone who would not accept the national narrative/pre packaged information they where told to accept. You are no different with the 'science' you have no connction to aside from taking on faith what you are told is true. Do me a favor and read this next bit aloud: Baaaaa Baaaaaa (you know the sound a sheep makes)

Although it is true that I have not studied to a large extent physics or biology beyond what is taught at school I know that I could test these for myself. If I was so driven I could study and check the facts because they are all laid down and peer reviewed. With theism though you just have to accept that the religion is true. And that would be bad enough, but I have read the bible and it is ludicrous, I mean a talking snake persuades a woman to eat an apple that somehow gives her knowledge AND it turns out knowledge is a bad thing. There are many many more laugh out loud silly moments but that possibly the first one that actually gets a titter.

I don't remember calling you names, but then these little posts between us are not something I care to retain. I will forget this in a minute.

who are you again? Down beaten plumb.. yes you have made remarks just look at the next paragraph and then look at your last post. same lazy attempt that i called you one back then!

You do seem to have very limited knowledge on practically every sphere of human learning though, biology, history, science and chemistry your ignorance seems to be unrestrained.

That isn't name calling that is an accurate assessment of your capabilities.

what a douche did I not just call you out on doing this very same thing?!?!? You have made no effort in determining my cognitivablities let alone test me in any consistent way as to determine how far my knowledge in any of those subjects are..

I don't need to. You quite freely give of your ignorance everyday. I don't catch all of it but some is really quite staggering in its utter stupidity and lack of understanding on basic things.

the fact that this is your second attempt even after me telling you of this mistake you are compelled beyond reasoning to use the very same insult is telling of your psyche..

It was not meant as an insult, just an observation.

You are projecting your greatest fear/insults onto me.. in that these are the areas you would be obliterated if I could prove you inepth in. Otherwise why bring them up a second time after I had already shown you have done no testing to support any of those charges!!!

inepth?

This is lazy parenting at best.. maybe this is how your dad reigned you in but this is not going to work here with me sport. maybe you need to just bully your kids with that unfounded crap as no one here is going for it.

Its at around this point I started to realise that Drich was off his meds.

Proof sport your digs lack support and proof. do you see how I reference what you say show how you fail and back it up with working examples to prove your failure? That is how smart analytical people work and do things.. Slow emotional people just point to people and list out negative qualities with no rhyme or reason, it is just words to then that create a negative vibe or emotion.. for instance, again nothing you said proved I lacked in any of the areas of education. you just randomly listed fundamentals of basic learning.. again as an emotional attack or dig.. meaning your prize the effect of bring negative feelings over fact which conclusively show you are not analytical/science minded person..

I can almost feel the heat of his skin as he works himself into a lather. I imagine he has a small amount of froth just on the left of his lip

[Drich]

Consiousness/brain activity can be monitored with scientific equipment.

glob..
monitoring activity is not the same as understanding how or what or why consciousness is.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Can...sciousness
https://qz.com/708632/science-cant-total...ever-will/
https://www.livescience.com/47096-theori...sness.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...e-says-yes
three current articles explain science can not full explain consciousness. argument over. Science can not reconcile every aspect of humanity yet you think it is ready to catalog God?

We can't even say for sure how love works... yes some try to attribute to chemical changes in the brain but love is far more binding that a chemical bath, the same is true with hate. That is just in your own little field of experiences.

And yet love and hate are both well understood both in their cause, effect and even the reason s for their evolution.

but again despite the trivial psychobabble we may assign to love and hate there still is not scientific understanding of how it exist.
Again you are missing the point intentionally for the minushia of splitting hairs. you claim science can and is big enough for a subject like God when in fact with all we know our Id our deepest selves we do not fully understand...

What's more if you read those articles some refer to consciousness as our "soul." looks like science is comming full circle.

That said God does not require endless faith either. God gives us all a mustard seed's worth of faith. a small amount where we choose to put it in. whether that be with God or with in this case man.

Not me, I have never believed for a second in a god.

retard What I mean is God gives us all an equal amount of faith ok say faith is a seed, that one can plant in a given world view and when you plant it that faith will develop and grow. Now either we can take this seed and plant it with God or we can plant it with what we think we know. Meaning in the beginning before we decide on a world view it takes an equal effort to either believe God or the world.

propaganda for whom? The move give christians hope in their belief so they can coexist with people who think less of them for their beliefs. how is that propaganda? or is that a term you do not understand? is it ow just a pop culture word that means one sided?

It is blatant pro Christian propaganda that perpetuates a few lies. First it tries to paint Christians as the oppressed when in fact in the US where the film is set they are not only the majority but the countries main oppressor.
It tries to paint denial of god as hatred of god. I don't hate god. I don't think there is one.

look on this board moron the same thing happens here. Remember catholic lady and just about every other christian that was here last year? They left, why? because of how nasty all of you are towards Christians. they even tried to get me to leave with them as a point of protest. because people could just say slanderous things against them and there was no recourse.

I liked Catholic Lady, we got on well. She was always considered and thoughtful even though I thought she was wrong in her beliefs she was able to support them to a much higher level than some here and I don't think you could characterise how I interacted as abrasive. You get what you give with me.

do you seriously think yu are the only person here? that your response is that of everyone who shares your views? If not then why are you pretending your efforts is why she left? are you playing stupid the real thing or avoiding conceding to my point any and every way you can?

Although it is true that I have not studied to a large extent physics or biology beyond what is taught at school I know that I could test these for myself. If I was so driven I could study and check the facts because they are all laid down and peer reviewed. With theism though you just have to accept that the religion is true. And that would be bad enough, but I have read the bible and it is ludicrous, I mean a talking snake persuades a woman to eat an apple that somehow gives her knowledge AND it turns out knowledge is a bad thing. There are  many many more laugh out loud silly moments but that possibly the first one that actually gets a titter.

You do not have to just accept by faith God is real that is the biggest lie against christianity ever told. God said we are given the smallest amount of faith and if we can give it to him he would move mountains to provide you with the proof you needed to establish and maintain a relationship with him.. Surly you have read some of the things he has dne for me... I am not special what he did for me is offered to anyone who can put their faith in him just for a little while.

I don't remember calling you names, but then these little posts between us are not something I care to retain. I will forget this in a minute.

who are you again? Down beaten plumb.. yes you have made remarks just look at the next paragraph and then look at your last post. same lazy attempt that i called you one back then!

You do seem to have very limited knowledge on practically every sphere of human learning though, biology, history, science and chemistry your ignorance seems to be unrestrained.

That isn't name calling that is an accurate assessment of your capabilities.

brother again based on what??? you have done NO credible testing to come to those conclusions... therefore that is empty name calling. What don't you understand about that? If you do not have proof of your charge then your charge is nothing more than a school yard taunt!!!

what a douche did I not just call you out on doing this very same thing?!?!? You have made no effort in determining my cognitivablities let alone test me in any consistent way as to determine how far my knowledge in any of those subjects are..

I don't need to.

you do because you can not possibly know the context from which every conversation you jump into the middle of began. you can not possibly track ever line of reasoning every point of reference. I can't and I read it all. I have to take notes.. None of the 1/2 assed effort you have put into calling me names even comes closes to be able to accurately judge whether I am incapable or not. Again with out some structured basis your assessment is just a lazy intellect's way of dismissing someone without the actual work. Which makes you dishonest and deceitful.

You quite freely give of your ignorance everyday. I don't catch all of it but some is really quite staggering in its utter stupidity and lack of understanding on basic things.

cite something, I dare you to find something and quote it and see If I can not produce at least three references to support my view. Do you want to know where our problem lies? you see you self an an intelligent individual and you are judging me by your own limited understanding of how the church and world works. and when I go into a subject deeper than you can you wrongfully assume I reasoning is at fault... otherwise quote something I dare you show me where I am wrong or ignorant about a given subject. (try something new because anything old will only proove your cognitive limitations and stunted ability to learn past what you think you already know.)I promise you, you can not find one.how do I know?? because again everything I discuss outside of my personal testimony is always backed up with legit source material.

the fact that this is your second attempt even after me telling you of this mistake you are compelled beyond reasoning to use the very same insult is telling of your psyche..

It was not meant as an insult, just an observation.

citation.. show me what you have observed to bring you to this conclusion.. Specifically! Show me quote me do something beside accuse me without cause! As that makes you far too easy of mark to obliterate.

You are projecting your greatest fear/insults onto me.. in that these are the areas you would be obliterated if I could prove you inepth in. Otherwise why bring them up a second time after I had already shown you have done no testing to support any of those charges!!!

inepth?
Auto-incorrect
drop the h

This is lazy parenting at best.. maybe this is how your dad reigned you in but this is not going to work here with me sport. maybe you need to just bully your kids with that unfounded crap as no one here is going for it.

Its at around this point I started to realise that Drich was off his meds.

again insult without provocation. I don't even take blood pressure meds. what meds are you referring,or is this more lazy judgement?
calling someone or telling someone they are lacking in a cognitive area without proof is again just amecalling. maybe in you house hold you saw this on a daily basis.. maybe you dad called you names as a way to vent his anger and disappointment to you and in turn you took up this practice and apply it to people who offend you or frustrate you.. You don't feel the need to justify your poor judge of character because you are not worried about being factually correct, but seek a emotional charge and satasfaction of simply belittling what angers you.. Other wise why keep returning to this well of unfounded name calling.. again I ask for a citation if you think this is based in fact!

Proof sport your digs lack support and proof. do you see how I reference what you say show how you fail and back it up with working examples to prove your failure? That is how smart analytical people work and do things.. Slow emotional people just point to people and list out negative qualities with no rhyme or reason, it is just words to then that create a negative vibe or emotion.. for instance, again nothing you said proved I lacked in any of the areas of education. you just randomly listed fundamentals of basic learning.. again as an emotional attack or dig.. meaning your prize the effect of bring negative feelings over fact which conclusively show you are not analytical/science minded person..

I can almost feel the heat of his skin as he works himself into a lather. I  imagine he has a small amount of froth just on the left of his lip

no heat just enjoyment of smashing the opposition using the same tools and tactics used against christians. Matter of fact I am a little cold and robotic when it comes to redirecting.. like when I a about to point out I was asking for citation last thread to prove how inept you claim I was and now it seems I am being accused of being in a rage or angry..

I like you all simply know when his opponent is on his heels and falling back to hit the mat hard. I am just pouring on the same pressure you all use against us in the way of proof and citation fact and quotations to prove your positions. like wise I am taking the same road to disprove not only your integrity but you own ability to use logic and reason in a conversation. not only that I am happy to expose the root of all of this is being your emotion and pride.. pride in the fact that you think someone like yourself can always best a man of faith.

I tell you this.. no matter who gets the last word here, your personal take away from this conversation will be that it does not matter which side of God you stand on. your intellectual 'superiority' is not guaranteed. So before you write the first line of your next post know i will be not nice to you if you cannot produce the citations, facts and quotations I have asked for. also you might want to do more than one unless you want to eat crown from the start.

[Jehanne]

Drich,

The Jesus Seminar, which consisted of over a dozen of the most prominent Biblical scholars and dozens of other contributing scholars, coded the entire Gospel of John with black beads (used to vote on whether the group of scholars thought that a particular phrase was actually spoken by the historical Jesus), which means that they believed that not a single sentence in the entire gospel of John was, in fact, spoken by the historical Jesus.

Do you agree with their scholarly analysis and conclusions?  If not, why not?

Hell no.. Why? they stacked the deck.. Or rather you stoped reading/thinking when you saw prominate bible scholars... when in fact:

The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 50 critical Biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk that originated under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[1][2] The seminar was very active through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 21st century.

Members of the Seminar used votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth.[3] They produced new translations of the New Testament and apocrypha to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports: The Five Gospels (1993),[4] The Acts of Jesus (1998),[5] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).[6] They also ran a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Do you see the problem?

of course not otherwise you woud not have posted this tripe.

In addition to your 50 professional scholars you have 100 laymen which could mean reformed preacher but it could also mean atheist historian. which even if all 50 professionals agree Jesus said abc your 100 laymen could vote no he did not meaning you would have a 2/3 majority vote that jesus did not say abc when everyone of note could have said the opposite.

The fact that they would isolate john and not address the connective scriptures john shares with the others is very dubious. This whole thing stinks of someone setting up a 'trap' who doesn't know enough about the subject matter to make it look legit.

Meaning you a person ignorant of the bible and how it works as well as how the bible was compiled and of the manuscripts from which the book of John was taken, are desperatly trying to disqualify me and my knowedge base by putting what I said and believe up again something you think is an authority that would normally supperceed any personal discovery by the nature or volume of "certified scholars" involved.

Now either again you stopped reading and thinking when you saw the 50 scholars or you are too stupid to see how 100 more people with o qualifications at all could taint anything the scholars would have to say just by sheer number!

Example lets say that group ws ask does the bible say homosexuality a sin? the scholars if they were worth their salt would all say yes. undeniably. however the layeity is not bound to all say yes are they? (look at the churches who have gay preachers) depending o the layeity the vote could be 100 people saying no sin here verse 50 identifying sin and this "jesus seminar' would declare homosexality not a sin..

So no, I do not give two squirts about a consensus of people who can not all be vetted. Too many varibles and if you agree with them just because they are telling you what you want to hear?!?!? Then you and the brain washed ignorant one. From you I should get a kudo for this and not rebuttal, but yes Drich you are right. I was not aware of the 100 other random people they made apart of this process.

If not the Jesus Seminar and other scholars like them, whom should I trust?  You??

[The Grand Nudger]

Everyone has everything wrong, except Drich.

[Peebothuhlu]

People have been polarized no in betweens when it come to church and science. to the point they make movies about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Not_Dead_(film)

This is a film that describes much of the scholastic climate towards people of faith and 'science.

The above is what started my conversation with you Drich.

That you are happy to use something that is barely above a work of fiction as something to support you argument.

That you've then, later, latched onto an ACTUAL work of fiction with out seeing it as some one parodying your point is further telling.

I also notice, having read back through the thread to find my starting point, that when people do ask Drich for eveidence... All that seems to be forcoming fom Drich is either personal testimonials (Which, given the nature of the poster and thir behaviour on the forum, seems highly dubious) OR links to things on a par with 'New Scientist' (At best) but nothing actually of a harder scientific nature.

Now, don't get me wrong. My reading level is at about that of understanding the much simplified views presented in a New Scientist magazine.
But, knowing those actually involved in fields of science, the level of that magazine and 'Actual' science are still worlds apart.

So, the summations, is that Drich's level of 'I am happy with my understanding of the world' is;

(A) I felt it happen, so it's true.
(B) I see stuff all over the place and in nedia which look like it supports my feels.

Yes, that's a sarcastic paraphrase.

The reason oothers are not "Rushing to my defense" Drich?

1) They don't need to because they've all most probably seen your spew of crazy many times over.

2) They are happy to let you wallow in your own deluded ignorance. (Remeber, it's pointless to argue with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it)

3) People ong ago ealized you don't fully understand things like 'Analogy' and 'Synonym'; and such. That those finer pointsd of reasoning and inderstandiong are some what beyond/above you.

4) I don't need any one's help to point out how wierd/wrong/crazy-train your posts are. Your continued posts do quite well enough on their own at displaying your demeanour.

Yes, not going to let you bloviate on in favour of your weird and twisted views about slavery.

It's wrong. It's always been wrong. We can explain and give good and valid reasons'explanations/evidence for why it's always been wrong.
That people then use said 'Wrong-ness' to point out the unfairness in other systems is neither here not there.

Bye Drich, have fun chewing on the curtains.

Not at work.

[Jehanne]

As long as those movies make money, producers and filmmakers will continue to make them. It is why the "Aliens" franchise took so long to die such an arduous and slow (and, thankfully) death.