Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

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.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #381]

Indeed. A theist is one who believes in a god/gods. The type of god/gods matters not. It's real easy. Ask someone if they believe in a god/gods. If the answer is "yes" then they are a theist. Any other response and they are an atheist. Thus, theism involves god/gods of any kind. I don't know why some desire to confuse this.

Tcg

.......because they belong in their own category.
And now it looks as if you're trying to drop agnostics in to the atheist category!

Atheist to agnostic 'Do you believe in any God?'
Agnostic 'No'
Atheist 'That's it! Your an Atheist, then!'

And on.

[oldbadger]

The only point you make above that is worthy of attention is this'n

"Deists are indeed non-theists because theism is all about AWARE/INVOLVED God's."

You mean god, plural, not God's (belonging to God) which is a specific God, too. A small point but telling of sloppy thinking.

I'm going to enjoy your typo errors in future! Oh yes!

The difference/wrong thing or I should say misdirection, is 'involved'. An uninvolved (deist) god, is still an intelligent creator and a god. Crediting such makes one a theist. Deists are a subset (different colour brick) of Theism.

I just read this simple equation on another internet debate.......

A = theism

B = divine revelation, intervention, miracles, answered prayers, etc.

C = deism

If A is defined by B, and C rejects B, then C can’t be A

.......so easy to grasp, for some.

[TRANSPONDER]

The only point you make above that is worthy of attention is this'n

"Deists are indeed non-theists because theism is all about AWARE/INVOLVED God's."

You mean god, plural, not God's (belonging to God) which is a specific God, too. A small point but telling of sloppy thinking.

I'm going to enjoy your typo errors in future! Oh yes!

The difference/wrong thing or I should say misdirection, is 'involved'. An uninvolved (deist) god, is still an intelligent creator and a god. Crediting such makes one a theist. Deists are a subset (different colour brick) of Theism.

I just read this simple equation on another internet debate.......

A = theism

B = divine revelation, intervention, miracles, answered prayers, etc.

C = deism

If A is defined by B, and C rejects B, then C can’t be A

.......so easy to grasp, for some.

Rubbish. That doesn't even make a logical construct. And you have to show that Theism is limited to a god that does divine revelation, intervention, miracles, answered prayers, etc.

It isn't. Deism is belief in a god that made 'us' but doesn't intervene now. It is still a god, and belief in it is still theism.

Your little syllojism (enjoy that one ) fails because your parameters are wrong.

You do realise that, after a log time of posting some some nice heathenish stuff, this obsessive denial of atheism being what non -theism is (synonyms), you have to go w down the denialist tunnel of translation - shopping to prop up a false meaning of what Theism even is or exclusively is.

Theism is belief in any god, not just an intervening one. Deism is belief in a non -intervening god.

Thus Deism is a subset of Theism.

Non - belief in any god - claim is atheism, and we did the definitions already so 'translation -shopping' (never mind making up your own meanings) is futile.

And it just seems trashing your credibility in a woeful way over something that doesn't even matter, other than trying to find a non - belief that isn't called atheism, or i can't see what your beef is.

In the past, it's been like this. "Heck - ah ain't no ay -theeist; as jest don't berlieve in no god, thet's all!"

Doubts about religion, Bible, doctrine.
Rejection of Organised religion (Christianity, that is, all others being rejected without consideration to begin with)
Realisation that non theism is called atheism.
But atheism is of course as everyone knows, Liberalism which being translated from English to theist meaneth:
Communists, people who have no morals, want to put anyone who disagrees in prison camps, impose scientitism which includes totalitarians, censorship, indoctrination, eugenics and forcing boys to wear frilly frocks to school (Maga -macarthy dictionary).

Thus the name atheist has to be avoided or at least, a division of atheists into the Right and the wrong kind. The wrong kind being the liberals who want to kill babies, burn all Bibles and abolish Christmas and the right kind that hate the wrong kind.

Close? Cigar? I have seen it often enough.

But be of good cheer old Badge, as atheists will accept the term 'Non theist' or even 'agnostic'. You don't need to go down the rabbit hole (or worse tubes) of fiddled Theist apologetics.

[oldbadger]

The only point you make above that is worthy of attention is this'n

"Deists are indeed non-theists because theism is all about AWARE/INVOLVED God's."

You mean god, plural, not God's (belonging to God) which is a specific God, too. A small point but telling of sloppy thinking.

I'm going to enjoy your typo errors in future! Oh yes!

The difference/wrong thing or I should say misdirection, is 'involved'. An uninvolved (deist) god, is still an intelligent creator and a god. Crediting such makes one a theist. Deists are a subset (different colour brick) of Theism.

I just read this simple equation on another internet debate.......

A = theism

B = divine revelation, intervention, miracles, answered prayers, etc.

C = deism

If A is defined by B, and C rejects B, then C can’t be A

.......so easy to grasp, for some.

Rubbish. That doesn't even make a logical construct. And you have to show that Theism is limited to a god that does divine revelation, intervention, miracles, answered prayers, etc.

It isn't. Deism is belief in a god that made 'us' but doesn't intervene now. It is still a god, and belief in it is still theism.

Your little syllojism (enjoy that one ) fails because your parameters are wrong.

You do realise that, after a log time of posting some some nice heathenish stuff, this obsessive denial of atheism being what non -theism is (synonyms), you have to go w down the denialist tunnel of translation - shopping to prop up a false meaning of what Theism even is or exclusively is.

Theism is belief in any god, not just an intervening one. Deism is belief in a non -intervening god.

Thus Deism is a subset of Theism.

Non - belief in any god - claim is atheism, and we did the definitions already so 'translation -shopping' (never mind making up your own meanings) is futile.

And it just seems trashing your credibility in a woeful way over something that doesn't even matter, other than trying to find a non - belief that isn't called atheism, or i can't see what your beef is.

In the past, it's been like this. "Heck - ah ain't no ay -theeist; as jest don't berlieve in no god, thet's all!"

Doubts about religion, Bible, doctrine.
Rejection of Organised religion (Christianity, that is, all others being rejected without consideration to begin with)
Realisation that non theism is called atheism.
But atheism is of course as everyone knows, Liberalism which being translated from English to theist meaneth:
Communists, people who have no morals, want to put anyone who disagrees in prison camps, impose scientitism which includes totalitarians, censorship, indoctrination, eugenics and forcing boys to wear frilly frocks to school (Maga -macarthy dictionary).

Thus the name atheist has to be avoided or at least, a division of atheists into the Right and the wrong kind. The wrong kind being the liberals who want to kill babies, burn all Bibles and abolish Christmas and the right kind that hate the wrong kind.

Close? Cigar? I have seen it often enough.

But be of good cheer old Badge, as atheists will accept the term 'Non theist' or even 'agnostic'. You don't need to go down the rabbit hole (or worse tubes) of fiddled Theist apologetics.

Some rant, that.

The simple logic seems to be lost to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #384]

There is a problem for sure. The dismissal of an explanation as 'rant' (or a Lot of words) shows we are dealing with Faithbased denialism, and I again ask the question that seemingly got too near home; why you you insist that Deism is non belief in a god? It isn't, it is disbelief in an intervening god (as per definitions posted). Is it that you simply wish to deny that a non - theist is an atheist?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #381]

Indeed. A theist is one who believes in a god/gods. The type of god/gods matters not. It's real easy. Ask someone if they believe in a god/gods. If the answer is "yes" then they are a theist. Any other response and they are an atheist. Thus, theism involves god/gods of any kind. I don't know why some desire to confuse this.

Tcg

.......because they belong in their own category.
And now it looks as if you're trying to drop agnostics in to the atheist category!

Atheist to agnostic 'Do you believe in any God?'
Agnostic 'No'
Atheist 'That's it! Your an Atheist, then!'

And on.

But that's logical, based on the definitions.

Agnostic does not know whether a god exists or not.

Logic mandates that one does not believe in a god of any kind until it is validated
Thus agnosticism mandates non -belief.

Non - belief in theism is atheism.

You do not get to post a true (logical) claim and pretend that posting it in a sneering manner disproves it.

If you have got to non - belief, w you should have got far beyond the tricks of theist apologists.

It is because you just don't like the title atheist - which is what a non - theist is?

Is it or isn't it that? I have seen it before. Why? Because you have been taught to hate the very name 'atheist? Because you fear atheists are Liberals and you have a political problem with that? Let's be honest and see what your real problem is.

No charge.

[oldbadger]

.......................................................................................
Is it or isn't it that? I have seen it before. Why? Because you have been taught to hate the very name 'atheist? Because you fear atheists are Liberals and you have a political problem with that? Let's be honest and see what your real problem is.

I certainly don't fear atheists.
And I certainly don't hate them.
And I don't sneer at folks.

You've put far too many words in my mouth, T, and all the while you've been ignoring simple, logical proposals.

Too much waffle in your posts, and not enough logic, I think.

[TRANSPONDER]

.......................................................................................
Is it or isn't it that? I have seen it before. Why? Because you have been taught to hate the very name 'atheist? Because you fear atheists are Liberals and you have a political problem with that? Let's be honest and see what your real problem is.

I certainly don't fear atheists.
And I certainly don't hate them.
And I don't sneer at folks.

You've put far too many words in my mouth, T, and all the while you've been ignoring simple, logical proposals.

Too much waffle in your posts, and not enough logic, I think.

Too much misreprentation and denial, in yours, and I am curious why you seem to need to deny that Deism is not beleif, when it is a subset of tTheism.

Atheist to agnostic 'Do you believe in any God?'
Agnostic 'No'
Atheist 'That's it! Your an Atheist, then!'

And on

This was a sneer. Or a misrepresentation of the argumenty as it leaves out the reasoning, misrepresenting is t as a say so.

The name for non - belief in a god is atheism, not 'Deism'. As the definitions showed, and you haven't even tried to go definition -hunting.

The way it looks is that you are a non -beleiver (in the god -claim) and yet you want to find some other name than Atheist. Non - theist then. Or even 'Agnostic'.

There has to be some reason why you insist that Deism is something other than Theism by misrepresenting Theism as limited to an intervening god, which it isn't.

I'm not telling you your motives, I'm asking. I'm suggesting that dislike of the name 'atheist' (perhaps for political reasons) is behind it. It has usually been the reason. If not that, then why?

[oldbadger]

Too much misreprentation and denial, in yours, and I am curious why you seem to need to deny that Deism is not beleif, when it is a subset of tTheism.

You continue to tell me that I belong with a group of people who believe in an 'involved and aware God'. How insulting of you.

How do you feel when people tell you what or who you are?

[TRANSPONDER]

Too much misreprentation and denial, in yours, and I am curious why you seem to need to deny that Deism is not beleif, when it is a subset of tTheism.

You continue to tell me that I belong with a group of people who believe in an 'involved and aware God'. How insulting of you.

How do you feel when people tell you what or who you are?

No, no. Unless you can show me otherwise, Theism includes those who believe in an involved and aware god and those (Deists) who believe in an intelligent creator that is not involved with Us even if it is aware.

If you are offended by a definition that differs from your ideas, that is you getting butt - hurt at the dictionary, not at me. So just leave alone playing the 'Oh you atheists are so WUDE' card; leave that to the Bible literalists.

Your only Out is to contest the definition, not pretend to be offended. Shall we look at what deism is before anyone starts denouncing the other?



Please consider carefully before temptation to sliding down the rabbit - hole of Theist dismissal of videos that proffer correction. I know you can do this right and better. Or I have Faith