Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Darkstorn]

I will decline to name the spot because I've had other people harass me on other forums and do unsavory research on my ISP and etc.

Understandable. Ever wondered why people go to such lengths? Perhaps it was something you said.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because there are no contemporaneous documents ... NONE! The provenance of what has survived is highly questionable. You have to want to believe to take it seriously and while that maybe fine for religion, that is no way to do history. Memorizing 20 Gettysburg Addresses is hardly intellectual legerdemain, many people have memorized all five acts of Hamlet or large chunks of Chaucer in Middle English.

You may believe that these documents are not spurious, but your claim that they you know that they are not is absurd and rooted in hubris rather than knowledge, so it is your point that is, in fact, moot.
If you are unwilling to revel the source of your claim of authority then I really can't take it seriously. Your Hebrew is likely far better than mine, but I rather doubt that you have an advantage in either Greek or Latin. I have made no assumptions, tutored or untutored ... the assumptions are all yours and your vaunted religious education has only served to feed your obvious propensity for confirmation bias.

Where to begin? In my secular university, even my hardened atheist NT professors admitted some to all of the NT documents were eyewitness documents of Jesus's peers, not written much later.

And while I only have a year of ancient Greek and you may have more studies, the fact that you say you have a superior Latin knowledge shows you are uninformed regarding basic Bible interpretation and hermeneutics. Let me help you:

* The OT is mostly Hebrew, with a few chapters/passages in Chaldean/Aramaic
* The NT is 100% Greek
* Modern Bibles in English are 100% translated from Hebrew/Greek source texts, NEVER Latin translations, as that would interpolate an added translation that avoids clarity

My "vaunted religious education" is not worth much compared to the love and cross of Christ, sure, but it did inform me that anyone who bring Latin into the discussion isn't playing Bible study with a full deck.

You may return to your M.O. of philosophy without fact, again, now...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Understandable. Ever wondered why people go to such lengths? Perhaps it was something you said.

No, it was because certain troll atheists are also vicious people. A shame, since I could have evangelized to them on THAT forum.

 

[Darkstorn]

A shame, since I could have evangelized to them on THAT forum.

Well that just makes you look like a troll.

 

[Sapiens]

Where to begin? In my secular university, even my hardened atheist NT professors admitted some to all of the NT documents were eyewitness documents of Jesus's peers, not written much later.

References please, else this is just another of your specious claims.

And while I only have a year of ancient Greek and you may have more studies, the fact that you say you have a superior Latin knowledge shows you are uninformed regarding basic Bible interpretation and hermeneutics. Let me help you:

Latin gives you access to many things, including the Vulgate (4th Century, about the same as the oldest complete Greek text and the writings of Fortunatianus which predate the Vulgate). If that is not of interest or value to the conversation, or are outside of your ken ... so be it, your loss. Not having a command of Latin also limits you with respect to many authors from the Fourth Century up through today, but who needs their commentaries, certainly not one as learned as you, eh?

* The OT is mostly Hebrew, with a few chapters/passages in Chaldean/Aramaic
* The NT is 100% Greek
* Modern Bibles in English are 100% translated from Hebrew/Greek source texts, NEVER Latin translations, as that would interpolate an added translation that avoids clarity

I don't see any point here except a misfired attack. You will need to reload and try again. The flash in the pan did you way more damage that it did me.

My "vaunted religious education" is not worth much compared to the love and cross of Christ, sure, but it did inform me that anyone who bring Latin into the discussion isn't playing Bible study with a full deck.

As show above, a lack of Latin background is nothing to brag about.

You may return to your M.O. of philosophy without fact, again, now...

You are the one who is trying to support claims that lack a factual basis, try to take responsibility for your own claims rather than flailing about in an attempt to denigrate others and put words in their mouths.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The gospel records, honestly, that Jesus appeared in Galilee to over 500 of His disciples, including ones who "doubted He resurrected". I would say that underscores a quite honest report. This accounting actually addresses your concern directly and concisely.

"2000 years later, nobody has ever found such a record."

I just quoted the record for your convenience. Also, you have a Presentist bias--your assumption is that Jewish scribes went around recording historical events on paper, when rather they were conversant with God's Law and the scriptures, and did mostly commentary on same.

I've asked you before, and I"ll ask you again. Where can I read those 500 accounts that you claim?

Anybody can say, "I saw a thing and so did 500 other people." That doesn't make it so. Especially if I can't examine the accounts of the 500 other people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where to begin? In my secular university, even my hardened atheist NT professors admitted some to all of the NT documents were eyewitness documents of Jesus's peers, not written much later.

I would love to see some documentation that supports this claim. From my understanding all of the Gospels were anonymous accounts written at least a generation after the fact and the writings of Paul would not count since he was not an eyewitness himself.

And while I only have a year of ancient Greek and you may have more studies, the fact that you say you have a superior Latin knowledge shows you are uninformed regarding basic Bible interpretation and hermeneutics. Let me help you:

* The OT is mostly Hebrew, with a few chapters/passages in Chaldean/Aramaic
* The NT is 100% Greek
* Modern Bibles in English are 100% translated from Hebrew/Greek source texts, NEVER Latin translations, as that would interpolate an added translation that avoids clarity

My "vaunted religious education" is not worth much compared to the love and cross of Christ, sure, but it did inform me that anyone who bring Latin into the discussion isn't playing Bible study with a full deck.

You may return to your M.O. of philosophy without fact, again, now...

Yes, almost everyone knows this about the Bible. The question is can you support your earlier claims?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well that just makes you look like a troll.

Thankfully, as I age, I still have my looks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've asked you before, and I"ll ask you again. Where can I read those 500 accounts that you claim?

Anybody can say, "I saw a thing and so did 500 other people." That doesn't make it so. Especially if I can't examine the accounts of the 500 other people.

That's a GREAT POINT, thanks!

Would you like to speak to 500 people who've had personal encounters with Jesus Christ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a GREAT POINT, thanks!

Would you like to speak to 500 people who've had personal encounters with Jesus Christ?

I am sure that I could round up 500 people who've had personal encounters with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Would you become a Pastafarian if I did so?

 

[BilliardsBall]

References please, else this is just another of your specious claims.

Latin gives you access to many things, including the Vulgate (4th Century, about the same as the oldest complete Greek text and the writings of Fortunatianus which predate the Vulgate). If that is not of interest or value to the conversation, or are outside of your ken ... so be it, your loss. Not having a command of Latin also limits you with respect to many authors from the Fourth Century up through today, but who needs their commentaries, certainly not one as learned as you, eh?
I don't see any point here except a misfired attack. You will need to reload and try again. The flash in the pan did you way more damage that it did me.
As show above, a lack of Latin background is nothing to brag about.

You are the one who is trying to support claims that lack a factual basis, try to take responsibility for your own claims rather than flailing about in an attempt to denigrate others and put words in their mouths.

I think you denigrated this debate by saying that 4th century writings have a bearing on Jesus's 1st century life and times. As usual, atheists are 300 years or so off.

By the way, you need a reference as to how it is that many religious professors in secular universities are hardened atheists? Here's the reference, go ask someone else who, like me, has a Bachelor's in Religion.

 

[columbus]

That's a GREAT POINT, thanks!

Would you like to speak to 500 people who've had personal encounters with Jesus Christ?

I have spoken with Jesus Christ Himself. Personally. In the flesh.

Or so He told me. And frankly, I am certain that he sincerely believed it.
Tom

 

[columbus]

That's a GREAT POINT, thanks!

Would you like to speak to 500 people who've had personal encounters with Jesus Christ?

This ability you have, to hear what you want to hear regardless of what is said, is why I doubt that you actually attended a secular institution where the staff have such unevidenced opinions about the NT.
But I don't doubt that you believe that you did.
Tom

 

[Sapiens]

That's a GREAT POINT, thanks!

Would you like to speak to 500 people who've had personal encounters with Jesus Christ?

I do not need to, I have two people that live nearby and claim to be Jesus Christ ... come to think of it, didn't Charles Manson say that he was too?

I think you denigrated this debate by saying that 4th century writings have a bearing on Jesus's 1st century life and times. As usual, atheists are 300 years or so off.

By the way, you need a reference as to how it is that many religious professors in secular universities are hardened atheists? Here's the reference, go ask someone else who, like me, has a Bachelor's in Religion.

This points out a problem with most people who do not go on to advanced University study. The lack often basic knowledge (the oldest complete set of the gospels dates from the 4th Century, and there is a complete lack of provenance prior to that); and, they fail to grasp the difference between a reference and a claim ... just as you do.

I have spoken with Jesus Christ Himself. Personally. In the flesh.

Or so He told me. And frankly, I am certain that he sincerely believed it.
Tom

Me too, at least weekly. In fact, I usually buy him a cup a Ka'u coffee ... one of the best in the world.

 

[Darkstorn]

I met a guy in the subway in the middle of the night who claimed he was Jesus. He told me that he could destroy the subway if he wanted to. Since i couldn't prove he wasn't Jesus, i didn't want to take any chances so i asked him not to.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would love to see some documentation that supports this claim. From my understanding all of the Gospels were anonymous accounts written at least a generation after the fact and the writings of Paul would not count since he was not an eyewitness himself.




Yes, almost everyone knows this about the Bible. The question is can you support your earlier claims?

I disagree. I don't think you'd "love to see some documentation that supports this claim." I think you would hate it, avoid it, despise it, and the person who pointed you to it. I call baloney on your denier's mindset.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. I don't think you'd "love to see some documentation that supports this claim." I think you would hate it, avoid it, despise it, and the person who pointed you to it. I call baloney on your denier's mindset.

You are projecting your flaws upon others. You hate the fact that your myths have been shown to be wrong. The question is why can't anyone that agrees with you support their claims with actual evidence? You should be asking yourself that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This ability you have, to hear what you want to hear regardless of what is said, is why I doubt that you actually attended a secular institution where the staff have such unevidenced opinions about the NT.
But I don't doubt that you believe that you did.
Tom

Um, your still talking about college professors? Would you like to hear from 500 persons who've encountered the risen Christ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I do not need to, I have two people that live nearby and claim to be Jesus Christ ... come to think of it, didn't Charles Manson say that he was too?


This points out a problem with most people who do not go on to advanced University study. The lack often basic knowledge (the oldest complete set of the gospels dates from the 4th Century, and there is a complete lack of provenance prior to that); and, they fail to grasp the difference between a reference and a claim ... just as you do.
Me too, at least weekly. In fact, I usually buy him a cup a Ka'u coffee ... one of the best in the world.

I think you've had neither advanced nor basic study. Argue against THIS list:

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's a GREAT POINT, thanks!

Would you like to speak to 500 people who've had personal encounters with Jesus Christ?

I'd prefer that you back up your claim.