The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.
For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.
...............and more to come.
Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Moderator: Moderators
- The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #221[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]
Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.
This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.
SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !
viewtopic.php?t=39542
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]
It is the Sour Grapes Fallacy.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmWhat is the fallacy called?The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:08 am This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)
Please, tell me.
Give an example.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmThe feeling is mutual.You are unable to present good arguments.
You prove again again to have striking resemblances with banned user We_Are_VeNOM !SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmWell, think about it...Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.
If the idea is..
1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.
then on the flipside, it seems to me that..
2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.
The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.
Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.
This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.
SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !
viewtopic.php?t=39542
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
- SiNcE_1985
- Apprentice
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:32 pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #222I guess it is kinda like being in the Gotham City universe and finding out the Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person.The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:34 pm [Replying to oldbadger in post #1]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]It is the Sour Grapes Fallacy.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmWhat is the fallacy called?The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:08 am This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)
Please, tell me.Give an example.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmThe feeling is mutual.You are unable to present good arguments.You prove again again to have striking resemblances with banned user We_Are_VeNOM !SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmWell, think about it...Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.
If the idea is..
1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.
then on the flipside, it seems to me that..
2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.
The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.
Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.
This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.
SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !
viewtopic.php?t=39542
It was nice to be able to come back here and intellectually slap you atheists around, just like old times.
Before I go on another hiatus..
Special shout outs
tam (sister in Christ. Much love to her)
onewithhim (A JW of whom I respect)
Bust Nak (probably the only worthy adversary on here)
Transponder (the kid is ok with me)
And the Scotsman dude, forgot his name (cool dude).
No comment to anyone else.
Now, moderators..do y'all thang.
You got two choices, man; swallow blood, or swallow pride.
- The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #223Imagine then, how unexpectedly embarassing it must feel to get outed by a Hard Polytheist, of all kinds of people.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:32 amI guess it is kinda like being in the Gotham City universe and finding out the Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person.The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:34 pm [Replying to oldbadger in post #1]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]It is the Sour Grapes Fallacy.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmWhat is the fallacy called?The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:08 am This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)
Please, tell me.Give an example.SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmThe feeling is mutual.You are unable to present good arguments.You prove again again to have striking resemblances with banned user We_Are_VeNOM !SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:19 pmWell, think about it...Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.
If the idea is..
1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.
then on the flipside, it seems to me that..
2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.
The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.
Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.
This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.
SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !
viewtopic.php?t=39542
It was nice to be able to come back here and intellectually slap you atheists around, just like old times.
And another case solved by The Nice Centurion, detective of divine misterys!SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:32 am Before I go on another hiatus..
Special shout outs
tam (sister in Christ. Much love to her)
onewithhim (A JW of whom I respect)
Bust Nak (probably the only worthy adversary on here)
Transponder (the kid is ok with me)
And the Scotsman dude, forgot his name (cool dude).
No comment to anyone else.
Now, moderators..do y'all thang.
Now, if just someone would be so kind to tell me quick, what in the world is meant by "AtG" ???SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:26 pmMaybe he is, for all you know.This is horrible advice. I guess this means I need to reject anything any everything said about AtG, because I do not believe he really is the son of Zeus.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
- oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 241 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #224I believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:39 pm
Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?
It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.
[quote
Was John an actual witness? [[/quote]
The authors of G-John were not witnesses.
So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.
Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.
- oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 241 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #225I believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:39 pm
Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?
It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.
The authors of G-John were not witnesses.Was John an actual witness? [
So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.
Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8460
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 986 times
- Been thanked: 3654 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #226I don't think any of the authors were witness to the temple clearance, not only because they all predict the jewish war, which means they wrote their verions later, but they differ in what they tell.Even gMark has the angelic message and John does not, being evidence there was just an empty tomb and an angel had to be parked there to explain everything.
Given (Mark made changes) that g Mark it iself a copy of a (lost) synoptic original, that itself hast to post -date the Jewish war (unless one believes predictions). So to cut to chase, we are looking at the original story which had no nativities, no sermon, no miracle haul of fish, no raising of Lazarus, no resurrection appearances or angelic message - just an empty tomb found open by the women 'So He must have risen from death' (just as Christian belief said). But that does have the coming Jewish war, which (I would argue) is after the Jewish war, and it's all Christianised too. The nonsesne of the blasphemy charge, the Passover exchane that doesn't exist, and trying to blame the Jews for what Rome did.
We hare looking at a post - war Christian adaptation of the original story.
I think there was one. but it wasn't one that Christians or for that matter Rome, liked. And the constant hints of rebellion against Rome, hastily and clumsily patched and painted over are very frequent. I hear it shouted behind the Christian clamour of "Was Jesus a robber (bandit or zealot) that they had to come out to ghrab with swords and clubs? Absolutely not!!" "Yes he was, and Luke knows it well "We hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel" But he was caught and banged up in the worst way.
So not to go further into that we are at the original story, the 'Real' Jesus, before Paul recast the risen messiah who would come again and sort the Romans out as a redeeming messiah who would make the Romans God's people as much as the Jews. And the early churches (before the jewish war) were lready rewriting the rebel Jesus to make him Pauline Christian Jesus, and that's the 'original gospel'. None of the Jerusalem wrangles, and miracles and absolutely not the sermons in Johnbut not even hinted at in the synoptics. None of the Galilean material sermon on the mount or the parables not ever hinted at in John.
We don't even get the most memorable parablesof Luke in the other synoptics let alone in John.
The other must decide but i suggests - yes, for all to leave out out important and memorable stuff especially given the common synoptic source anyway is screaming 'he wrote all that himself'.
With just the last thing, I do suspect that the Jesus story has a real basis and the donkey ride and temple kerfuffle is part of that, which is why some writers try to separate them and John removed the temple bust - up to a different time. They knew what it looked like. When it clicks that Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person, and the crucified 'robbers' are Barrabbas' Galilean zealots, and guess that the 'blood of the Galileans' is Barabbas' (aka Jesus) fracas with the 1000 strong Roman guard, and think we know what the original story was and what Paul absolutely did not want to talk about and is what the Christian gospel -0 writers needed to cover up. They knew. Luke certainly did.
That's my conspiracy theory anyway , believe it or not.
Given (Mark made changes) that g Mark it iself a copy of a (lost) synoptic original, that itself hast to post -date the Jewish war (unless one believes predictions). So to cut to chase, we are looking at the original story which had no nativities, no sermon, no miracle haul of fish, no raising of Lazarus, no resurrection appearances or angelic message - just an empty tomb found open by the women 'So He must have risen from death' (just as Christian belief said). But that does have the coming Jewish war, which (I would argue) is after the Jewish war, and it's all Christianised too. The nonsesne of the blasphemy charge, the Passover exchane that doesn't exist, and trying to blame the Jews for what Rome did.
We hare looking at a post - war Christian adaptation of the original story.
I think there was one. but it wasn't one that Christians or for that matter Rome, liked. And the constant hints of rebellion against Rome, hastily and clumsily patched and painted over are very frequent. I hear it shouted behind the Christian clamour of "Was Jesus a robber (bandit or zealot) that they had to come out to ghrab with swords and clubs? Absolutely not!!" "Yes he was, and Luke knows it well "We hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel" But he was caught and banged up in the worst way.
So not to go further into that we are at the original story, the 'Real' Jesus, before Paul recast the risen messiah who would come again and sort the Romans out as a redeeming messiah who would make the Romans God's people as much as the Jews. And the early churches (before the jewish war) were lready rewriting the rebel Jesus to make him Pauline Christian Jesus, and that's the 'original gospel'. None of the Jerusalem wrangles, and miracles and absolutely not the sermons in Johnbut not even hinted at in the synoptics. None of the Galilean material sermon on the mount or the parables not ever hinted at in John.
We don't even get the most memorable parablesof Luke in the other synoptics let alone in John.
The other must decide but i suggests - yes, for all to leave out out important and memorable stuff especially given the common synoptic source anyway is screaming 'he wrote all that himself'.
With just the last thing, I do suspect that the Jesus story has a real basis and the donkey ride and temple kerfuffle is part of that, which is why some writers try to separate them and John removed the temple bust - up to a different time. They knew what it looked like. When it clicks that Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person, and the crucified 'robbers' are Barrabbas' Galilean zealots, and guess that the 'blood of the Galileans' is Barabbas' (aka Jesus) fracas with the 1000 strong Roman guard, and think we know what the original story was and what Paul absolutely did not want to talk about and is what the Christian gospel -0 writers needed to cover up. They knew. Luke certainly did.
That's my conspiracy theory anyway , believe it or not.
- SiNcE_1985
- Apprentice
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:32 pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #227Alexander the Great.The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 1:07 am Now, if just someone would be so kind to tell me quick, what in the world is meant by "AtG" ???
You got two choices, man; swallow blood, or swallow pride.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 891
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #228Well, the gospel of Yeshua, the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13), does not require a resurrection, other than the "son of man" returning after the "tribulation" (Mt 24:29-30). Only the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil", the gospel of lawlessness/grace/cross requires a resurrection.oldbadger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 2:42 amI believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:39 pm
Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.The authors of G-John were not witnesses.Was John an actual witness? [
So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.
Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.
And now you apparently want to delete the whole book of Revelation. Which blessing in that book do you think will be removed from yourself? The blessing of health? How are you doing by the way? The church of Paul would certainly not like the contents of the book of Revelation, for it is a message against that church. Luther didn't like the book of James for the same reason.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 891
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #229Well, the gospel of Yeshua, the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13), does not require a resurrection, other than the "son of man" returning after the "tribulation" (Mt 24:29-30). Only the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil", the gospel of lawlessness/grace/cross requires a resurrection.oldbadger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 2:42 amI believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:39 pm
Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.The authors of G-John were not witnesses.Was John an actual witness? [
So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.
Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.
And now you apparently want to delete the whole book of Revelation. Which blessing in that book do you think will be removed from yourself? The blessing of health? How are you doing by the way? The church of Paul would certainly not like the contents of the book of Revelation, for it is a message against that church. Luther didn't like the book of James for the same reason.
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1650 times
- Been thanked: 1110 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #230It depends on the claim. In the case for the Gospels, below would be my rubric:Ok, so what method(s) are you using to determine historical facts? Please, tell me.
- Are said event(s) independently corroborated? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels.
- Are such claim(s)/record(s) verified by relic(s)? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels regarding <Jesus>. This is why 'The Shroud' later became a thing, to try and add "credibility" in around the 1,300's. Which, by no surprise, was later also deemed untrustworthy.
- Are said source(s) consistent in their narrative? No! Hence, are also deemed untrustworthy. Benchwarmer explained this quite well in post 131. Your response to his explanation did absolutely nothing to refute it, and the readers see this.
- Are said source(s) free from political/religious bias? No. "Luke" alone was written with intent to capture persuasive authority and to fulfill OT prophecy in which "Mark" could not.
- Are said sources(s) free of claims which defy natural law? No. Such claims are extraordinary, therefore, more easily dismissed/ignored when all other criteria- are also 'no'.
- Are said sources(s) produced from firsthand accounts? No. In this case, it is important since we are speaking about one-time 'supernatural' events from antiquity.
- Are said source(s) identified? No. Another pause for concern, regarding the (4) Gospels.
Negative. "Luke" changes some claims, from "Mark", to fit a differing intended narrative. The video cites the verses between the two Gospels which do so.Right, he used Mark as a source, but added his own flavor to the story according to his investigation... thus, making it an independent account.
You are either purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or still do not get what I am saying.And guess what; you can spicen a story up with more truth added to the account, which is what he did...for the intended crowd.
Another baseless rubberstamp. I'm not going to explain, again, because you will either likely still not actually get it, or, pretend not to.I would, if Luke was committing the genetic fallacy.
How do we know AtG was a real person from antiquity? (vs) How do we know AtG was the son of Zeus? Further, does the second claims have to be true in order to support the first claim?That is the point, supernatural stuff will only need more if you are already against the idea of supernatural stuff.
Yes.Did the apostle Paul believe that he saw the resurrected Jesus, based on his writings. Yes or no?
I only have time for one debate forum, as I have a life outside of debating people of opposing views in my free-spare time. "Religion' already places me into countless categories for discussion.How many nonreligious debate forums are you a member of?
LOL! I guess this means if you can discredit 'abiogenesis', then the Bible is true? Your question insinuates a binary proposition. Is it possible to continue to explore the concept of 'deism' without also having to accept what looks to be obvious claims generated from religious propaganda and/or dogma (i.e.) the Gospels?Do you find it interesting that so many people believe that life came from inanimate material? Or are you cool with that?
As I've told you before, I have not studied abiogenesis enough to hold any position. Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't? If you can demonstrate it is nonsense, then maybe you will be next in line for a prize?
Sure, just apply faith to all 'supernatural' claims. But then I would also have to accept ALL religions, not just the one for which you have opted to 'apologize' for....Maybe he is, for all you know.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."