A simple case for intelligent design

BilliardsBall said:

All your contentions are wrong, but I would challenge Christianity didn't proliferate before Constantine

Click to expand...

One thing we know for sure is that it wasn't big enough for anyone to write about it until Constantine.

gnostic said:

Wow!

That reply is truly enlightening.

What I quoted from you revealed that your post mixed ignorance with false information.

How long have Christians in governments, rulers, princes and barons, been killing not only pagans for centuries and for thousands of years?

Click to expand...

Less than non-Christians have since Christianity only began 2,000 years ago.

The biggest war before the 20th century (eg WWI & WWII) was the Thirty Years’ War (1618 to 1648), fought in Central Europe, where the Protestant Germans rose up against the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) and their allies, where 8 million have died (the war had also caused famines and pestilence).

Click to expand...

Agreed, that’s what happens when people accept wolves in sheep’s clothing.....

It was partly political, but it was also due to religious freedom, when the HRE Emperor of the Hapsburg dynasty, Ferdinand II tried to force the Protestant German princes to convert to Catholicism, that’s what sparked the war in the first place. The war became larger, when successive outsider kingdoms of HRE, eg Sweden, England, France, etc, allied themselves with Protestant German princes.

Click to expand...

It was purely political and instituted by those wolves in sheep’s clothing. Deception is the only way the flock can be tricked by wolves...

Before that was the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the 16th century, and that was results of rise of Protestant movement in the HRE and Catholic counter reform, with series of different wars. The Counter-Reformation had also started the Roman Inquisition, which the Catholics started rounding up Protestants, not just against witches and Jews, and charging them with heresy.

Click to expand...

I’ve already agreed that wolves in sheep’s clothing (read atheists here pretending to be believers) cause lots of damage.

And let’s not forget the series of Crusade, at first wars, used against the Islamic empire, then against the Eastern Orthodox of the Byzantine Empire.

Click to expand...

Who’s forgetting those wolves in sheep’s clothing devouring the flock from within? Not me....

And before the Crusade there was Charlemagne, especially a war against the pagan Saxons in the late 8th century, where after the Saxons surrendered, they were forced to convert at sword points. The then Pope praised Charlemagne, and then later bestowed Charlemagne with the title of Emperor, the first of Holy Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

That’s what happens when sheep let wolves run the flock. They deceive it by dressing up like the sheep so the sheep will follow them for their own lust for power and bloodshed.

You telling us, Christian rulers and Christian governments weren’t warmongers and that they didn’t start wars, just demonstrated your level of ignorance.

Click to expand...

Apparently your idea of a Christian varies from mine... also apparently you can no more recognize wolves pretending to be sheep than the sheep did....

But it is your dishonesty (as well as your ignorance) that tried to push Evolution into theism vs atheism argument, as well as politics and wars.

Click to expand...

Or yours for trying to pretend wolves dressed as sheep are really sheep...

Evolution has nothing to do with religions and government politics and policies. No where does any Theory of Evolution say anything about genocide, let alone condoning genocide.

Click to expand...

Neither does the Bible. But wolves dressed as sheep (read atheists here) like to twist things so the sheep think they are doing the right thing. Not realizing that’s exactly why they were warned about those wolves....

Survival of the fittest, has more to do with biological adaptation and survival of the species, or risk extinction if they failed to adapt, and that involved no wars and genocide.

Click to expand...

Sure it has, when the migrating species drive out or killed those who’s food supply they wanted.... animals cull the herd by driving the sick or infirm from the pack. It keeps the pack healthy.

You are misrepresenting what survival of the fittest actually mean.

Click to expand...

apparently wolves that drive out the sick and infirm from the pack understand what it means....

You are certainly ignoring the Ten Commandments about bearing false witness as well as 1 Peter 2:1



You are lying through your teeth.

Click to expand...

Says the one that can’t recognize wolves in sheep’s clothing then calls them sheep....

But don’t worry, I understand it’s easier for you to believe your version than reality....

Makes your hatred easier to self justify...

Don't blame Christians doing Christian things. Just convince yourself they were atheists or Muslims or Pagans pretending to be Christians.

How deep does the indoctrination have to be to result in such utter blindness?

Justatruthseeker said:

Less than non-Christians have since Christianity only began 2,000 years ago.


Agreed, that’s what happens when people accept wolves in sheep’s clothing.....


It was purely political and instituted by those wolves in sheep’s clothing. Deception is the only way the flock can be tricked by wolves...


I’ve already agreed that wolves in sheep’s clothing (read atheists here pretending to be believers) cause lots of damage.


Who’s forgetting those wolves in sheep’s clothing devouring the flock from within? Not me....


That’s what happens when sheep let wolves run the flock. They deceive it by dressing up like the sheep so the sheep will follow them for their own lust for power and bloodshed.


Apparently your idea of a Christian varies from mine... also apparently you can no more recognize wolves pretending to be sheep than the sheep did....



Or yours for trying to pretend wolves dressed as sheep are really sheep...


Neither does the Bible. But wolves dressed as sheep (read atheists here) like to twist things so the sheep think they are doing the right thing. Not realizing that’s exactly why they were warned about those wolves....


Sure it has, when the migrating species drive out or killed those who’s food supply they wanted.... animals cull the herd by driving the sick or infirm from the pack. It keeps the pack healthy.

apparently wolves that drive out the sick and infirm from the pack understand what it means....


Says the one that can’t recognize wolves in sheep’s clothing then calls them sheep....

But don’t worry, I understand it’s easier for you to believe your version than reality....

Makes your hatred easier to self justify...

Click to expand...

Wow!

Not only you are displaying ignorance of Christian history, trying to deceive us and yourself that evolutionists are to blame for genocides that are never found in the theory of evolution, you are demonstrating hypocrisy.

Repeating the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” mantra, may work in your delusion, but you are not being honest with yourself, in regarding to a person or people are not accountable for their own actions, if you can shift the blame on someone’s else.

None of the past wars and past genocides that I mentioned in my previous reply (eg Charlemagne, Crusade, Thirty Years’ War, the Roman Inquisition, etc) were the works of atheists, whom you have portrayed as “the wolves”; they were all works of Christians - Christian leaders.

Christians, good or bad, should be held accountable for their own actions, and not shift the responsibilities of atheists.

I am not denying that there are good Christians, but there are also bad Christians, just as there be good and bad atheists, as well as good and bad Muslims, Hindus, etc, but apparently you cannot find faults with bad Christians.

Right, you are scapegoating atheists for the actions of what Charlemagne, the crusaders, the Catholic and Protestant leaders have done - all of them Christians.

You are being a hypocrite. Sorry, but I am afraid that you are the one who is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Justatruthseeker, because clearly you are not interested in the truth or being truthful.

And btw, justatruthseeker, I am agnostic, not atheist. If anyone displaying hatred here, is you, with you blaming “evolutionists” for genocides, when the theory don’t talk of genocide, because evolution is just biology, not politics, not social justice, not wars, with you equating evolution with atheism.

Look in mirror, you want to see who is hating whom.

gnostic said:

I would have no problem, if the apostle Matthew was indeed the author of this gospel, but that’s highly unlikely if the gospel was written some time between 80 and 90 CE.

This (approximate) date of composition would make it unlikely that the author was an eyewitness.

And given that the original composition of each gospels were anonymously written in the 1st century CE and that the names given to each of these gospels by the church in 2nd century CE, also make it highly unlikely that the names of these “alleged authors” are truly whom the church claimed them to be.

As to your points about calling these gospels by numbers instead of names that are currently used, I would say changing it would be needless.

I am personally comfortable calling the gospel of Matthew, as the gospel of Matthew, even if the apostle Matthew didn’t write it. That’s not the issue with me.

The issue is for some Christians, like yourself, claiming that it is the author is indeed Matthew. I would like more evidences before I could accept it to be true. (The same with the other authors.)

You want to blindly accept these authors to be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then that your choice, but don’t go around claiming something to be “fact”, when it is not and when you have no evidences to support your personal belief.

Click to expand...

I don't blindly accept anything, but when speaking to humans on Earth, I say "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John" so they can find my references, like John 3:16 to learn salvation, not "check out the 4th book of the NT's third chapter, sixteenth verse," which gets ponderous.

I know YOU know we both use these sorts of common conventions routinely, I bet we could even think of secular examples, like saying "Trump's administration did this" instead of naming 12 cabinet officials by name.

I'd appreciate your wisdom and knowledge even more than I do now if you would stop being a Pharisee.

ecco said:

Jewish Christian is an oxymoron.

Christians believe Jesus fulfilled Hebrew prophecy.
Jews do not believe Jesus fulfilled Hebrew prophecy.




The genocide recounted in the Bible is God's act of horrifically drowning all men, women, and children (including the "unborn babies" that you are so fond of saving).


As he ends his post with sanctimonious nonsense.

Click to expand...

Jews believe my circumcised flesh is quite important. Christians believe my relationship with the risen King is important. Therefore, call me a Christian if it pleases you.

The alleged genocide of the Bible--how do you know it was literal, not allegorical? You skeptics are fond of cherry picking what is allegory (Genesis!) and what is literal (Exodus!). Please explain.

I don't think you know, because these things are kept from the [self] wise and revealed to [humble] infants.

ecco said:

"His glorious resurrection"?
Let's look at the whole picture.

God has existed for eternity.
Somewhere along the line, God acquires a Second Nature - that of the Holy Ghost.
He directs the Holy Ghost part of Himself to impregnate a young human female virgin.
Nine months later she gives birth to the Third Part of Him/Them.
Thirty years later the Third Part gets nailed to a cross and eventually dies.
Somehow his body ends up in a cave and a couple of days later the Third Part walks around again for a few days and then disappears into heaven to reunite Itself with Its other Two Parts.

It's like if I cut off a fingernail and then crazy-glued in back on.


The only sacrifice I see is on the part of the young human female virgin that got raped.

Click to expand...

Where in your "whole picture" did Mary say, "I'm the Lord's servant, and pleased to follow His will"?

Where in your picture did you remark as to WHY Christ was crucified, and resurrected?

ecco said:

One thing we know for sure is that it wasn't big enough for anyone to write about it until Constantine.

Click to expand...

You are unaware of the 12 NT writers (before Constantine), the several dozen apocryphal writers (before Constantine) and the dozens of Roman historians/commentators (before Constantine)?

And note the difference between a born again at RF (are you unaware, respectfully?) and a skeptic (you're a $%@$@ liar!). I won't call you either @#@#$#@ or a liar, because I belong to Him.

BilliardsBall said:

Jews believe my circumcised flesh is quite important. Christians believe my relationship with the risen King is important. Therefore, call me a Christian if it pleases you.

The alleged genocide of the Bible--how do you know it was literal, not allegorical? You skeptics are fond of cherry picking what is allegory (Genesis!) and what is literal (Exodus!). Please explain.

I don't think you know, because these things are kept from the [self] wise and revealed to [humble] infants.

Click to expand...

Neither Genesis nor Exodus are historical. And this is not a matter of "atheists". Honest Christian scholars will make the same claim. And there were several examples of genocide in the OT. Which one are you talking about?

BilliardsBall said:

Where in your "whole picture" did Mary say, "I'm the Lord's servant, and pleased to follow His will"?

Where in your picture did you remark as to WHY Christ was crucified, and resurrected?

Click to expand...

How old was Mary when raped?

and there is no valid reason as to why Jesus was crucified and resurrected in the Christian myth.

I think you principles around identifying something as intelligently design are valid. I just do not think the human body is intelligently design with all it's flaws.

The other problem with ID is presumes human beings are machines. I don't think the machine metaphor for consciousness is valid.

BilliardsBall said:

The alleged genocide of the Bible--how do you know it was literal, not allegorical? You skeptics are fond of cherry picking what is allegory (Genesis!) and what is literal (Exodus!). Please explain.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you would accuse skeptics of cherry picking. As a skeptic, I don't cherry pick. I take the entire bible for what it is, a bunch of stories cobbled together from oral traditions of many different ancient tribes. That includes Genesis and Exodus and Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John and Revalations, et al.

However, when discussing the bible with theists, I'll be the first to hold them up to the "realities" of their chosen scripture.

It's actually the theists who cherry-pick. All Christians who believe in evolution cherry-pick. Even fundamentalist theists cherry-pick.

When I point out the impossibility of the Great Flood the cherry-picking theist comes back and says "that's just allegory warning people of evil". Or when I point out how ridiculous it is to believe the universe was created in six days, the cherry-picking theist will say "one day for God could be millions of years for us.

ecco said:

"His glorious resurrection"?
Let's look at the whole picture.

God has existed for eternity.
Somewhere along the line, God acquires a Second Nature - that of the Holy Ghost.
He directs the Holy Ghost part of Himself to impregnate a young human female virgin.
Nine months later she gives birth to the Third Part of Him/Them.
Thirty years later the Third Part gets nailed to a cross and eventually dies.
Somehow his body ends up in a cave and a couple of days later the Third Part walks around again for a few days and then disappears into heaven to reunite Itself with Its other Two Parts.

It's like if I cut off a fingernail and then crazy-glued in back on.


The only sacrifice I see is on the part of the young human female virgin that got raped.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Where in your "whole picture" did Mary say, "I'm the Lord's servant, and pleased to follow His will"?

Click to expand...

Yes, Massa, I will lay down and spread ma legs for you.
Yes, Father Thomas, I will willingly allow you to sodomize me.

Do you not understand, that meek young girls feel obligated to give in to pressure put on them by older stronger men? Can you imagine what Mary must have felt in the presence of a Holy Ghost? Can you see yourself denying His every request?

Thousands of young boys accepted being sodomized by priests.

Rape is rape when one of the two parties really cannot say "no".

BilliardsBall said:

Where in your picture did you remark as to WHY Christ was crucified, and resurrected?

Click to expand...

WHY He was crucified?
It was God's will. But there was no sacrifice. None.

ecco said:

One thing we know for sure is that it wasn't big enough for anyone to write about it until Constantine.

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

You are unaware of the 12 NT writers (before Constantine), the several dozen apocryphal writers (before Constantine) and the dozens of Roman historians/commentators (before Constantine)?

Click to expand...

What's your point? You were arguing that Christianity was highly prominent and accepted before Constantine. You haven't been able to produce one single shred of evidence for that allegation.

You say there were "dozens of Roman historians/commentators" but fail to show anything these alleged people wrote or who they are and when they wrote anything.

BilliardsBall said:

And note the difference between a born again at RF (are you unaware, respectfully?) and a skeptic (you're a $%@$@ liar!). I won't call you either @#@#$#@ or a liar, because I belong to Him.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate in that rant other than to call me names and make false allegations.

But don't worry. I'm not the type to report misbehavior directed toward me.

BilliardsBall said:

I don't blindly accept anything, but when speaking to humans on Earth, I say "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John" so they can find my references, like John 3:16 to learn salvation, not "check out the 4th book of the NT's third chapter, sixteenth verse," which gets ponderous.

Click to expand...

Well, I accept the gospels with those 4 names attached to the titles, because they have been used since the 2nd century, and I will not call them gospel 1, 2, 3 & 4, even if those gospels were originally written “anonymously” - as you said, as a matter of “convention”.

I see no need to change the titles. I am fine with the titles as they are used now.

My issues are not with changing the titles, but over you telling us the authors were eyewitnesses, over you assuming they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and over when they were originally composed.

Subduction Zone said:

How old was Mary when raped?

and there is no valid reason as to why Jesus was crucified and resurrected in the Christian myth.

Click to expand...

Your usual posts I ignore, lately, with good reason--but this one is highly provocative, due to its particularly uninformed question of yours:

THERE IS NO REASON IN CHRISTIANITY AS TO WHY JESUS DIED AND RESURRECTED?

Yet you claim to understand the Bible?!

ecco said:

It's interesting that you would accuse skeptics of cherry picking. As a skeptic, I don't cherry pick. I take the entire bible for what it is, a bunch of stories cobbled together from oral traditions of many different ancient tribes. That includes Genesis and Exodus and Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John and Revalations, et al.

However, when discussing the bible with theists, I'll be the first to hold them up to the "realities" of their chosen scripture.

It's actually the theists who cherry-pick. All Christians who believe in evolution cherry-pick. Even fundamentalist theists cherry-pick.

When I point out the impossibility of the Great Flood the cherry-picking theist comes back and says "that's just allegory warning people of evil". Or when I point out how ridiculous it is to believe the universe was created in six days, the cherry-picking theist will say "one day for God could be millions of years for us.

Click to expand...

I'd respond to you here, except I can't discern a question, only rhetoric. I don't believe as you've parodied me, here.

ecco said:

What's your point? You were arguing that Christianity was highly prominent and accepted before Constantine. You haven't been able to produce one single shred of evidence for that allegation.

You say there were "dozens of Roman historians/commentators" but fail to show anything these alleged people wrote or who they are and when they wrote anything.

Click to expand...

For someone claiming to be informed in these matters, I find it remarkable that you are unaware that the giants of Roman and Jewish historians wrote of the Christ and His followers prior to Constantine, and often by CENTURIES. Some names may help:

* Flavius Josephus
* Celsus
* Tacitus
* The Talmud
* Pliny the Younger
* Thallus
* Suetonius
* Mara Bar-Serapion
* Etc.!

I mind less that you are being intolerably vile and rude about God and Mary on a related post--as your fellow intellectual--then that you are currently arguing from a knowledge vacuum.

gnostic said:

Well, I accept the gospels with those 4 names attached to the titles, because they have been used since the 2nd century, and I will not call them gospel 1, 2, 3 & 4, even if those gospels were originally written “anonymously” - as you said, as a matter of “convention”.

I see no need to change the titles. I am fine with the titles as they are used now.

My issues are not with changing the titles, but over you telling us the authors were eyewitnesses, over you assuming they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and over when they were originally composed.

Click to expand...

Well, that's different! It sounds like you missed, for one example, the opening verses of Luke (describing Luke as a fellow eyewitness of Christ, and Luke as an interviewer and avid chronicler of other eyewitnesses of Christ). And it sounds like you missed reading the whole book of Acts (attributed to Luke, describing in dozens of places things like "Paul and we went here at this time, did this, said this, experienced this).