Liberal Christians

[IndependntLogic]

What I sitll find of interest, is that the OP request to meet "Liberal Christians" but when asked, will not define what they mean by Liberal and when those who state they are both idenify themselves, doesn't give any indication as to why they wanted to meet them or what they would like to know.

Thats because Sky didnt really want to talk to a christian at all..... he/she/it just wanted to hurl insults at them and tell them they ar'nte christian or christian enough for her/him/it.

This is the impression I get as well.

I dont see anywhere in the Bilble where Jesus was anything resembling a liberal.... nor was a he a conservative.

I suppose it depends on your definition.

He was non-political if ya ask me..... he thought politicians were a den of thieves, and he was right!

I agree. I would add that He was VERY clear that He felt religion and politics should never be mixed - which was one of the major problems of his day.

I see his teachings instructing me to do everything I can to be self reliant and think for myself.

Agreed. But He was also very clear that any time a Christian sees ANY poor person, even those they would consider to be scum, they should help that person. To reject them would be to reject Christ.

I am VERY charitable with my money, time, and abilities... I raise my children to respect their elders, and to be the best little women possible.

Both honorable and admirable.

If I see someone in need... I help them. Now that dont mean I hand money to every bum I see on the street either.
I wonder how many homeess people Sky has taken to dinner I know I have done it several times.... I load them up in my truck, and we go eat, and I fellowship wth them. Its always a good time. You'd be surprised at how many of those follks dont want to have a home... too much trouble.
I do however listen to my gut... which I think is the the spirit of God giving me intuition

Point being.... libs are'nt the only ones with a heart. In fact, most of the folks in my life who I think are assholes, usually end up being of the liberal persuasion. They dont like to be called liberals either..... why, I dont know, but it is what it is.

I find that often times, Conservatives label anyone not agreeing with them on EVERY issue, as being a Liberal. Certainly happened to me a lot. Think about that. I think Obama, Reid, and Pelosi suck. I hate Obamacare. I'm pretty anti-union. I own a glock as is my right. I would do away with a couple dozen fed agencies and give control to the states. I'm a Christian and think Christianity is often treated unfairly. I'm a business owner / "job creator" (100% American, thank you). I'm a family man. I was against Obama's bailouts as much as Bush's (mainly because of the poor structuring). I could go on but you get the idea. What does that make me to the whackjobs? A Liberal. Why? I give Obama credit for the order to kill OBL in an allied country. I think Bush was the origin of our economic problems (Obama just made them worse) etc... Just a thought for you to consider.

There are good christians, and there are bad ones as well, and that goes for liberals too.

Sky Dancer is intellectually dishonest..... true story.

I don't know sky dancer well enough to make such a judgement but that seems to be the case with at least this post.

 

[Avatar4321]

What I sitll find of interest, is that the OP request to meet "Liberal Christians" but when asked, will not define what they mean by Liberal and when those who state they are both idenify themselves, doesn't give any indication as to why they wanted to meet them or what they would like to know.

Thats because Sky didnt really want to talk to a christian at all..... he/she/it just wanted to hurl insults at them and tell them they ar'nte christian or christian enough for her/him/it.

I dont see anywhere in the Bilble where Jesus was anything resembling a liberal.... nor was a he a conservative.

He was non-political if ya ask me..... he thought politicians were a den of thieves, and he was right!

I see his teachings instructing me to do everything I can to be self reliant and think for myself.
I am VERY charitable with my money, time, and abilities... I raise my children to respect their elders, and to be the best little women possible.

If I see someone in need... I help them. Now that dont mean I hand money to every bum I see on the street either.
I wonder how many homeess people Sky has taken to dinner I know I have done it several times.... I load them up in my truck, and we go eat, and I fellowship wth them. Its always a good time. You'd be surprised at how many of those follks dont want to have a home... too much trouble.
I do however listen to my gut... which I think is the the spirit of God giving me intuition

Point being.... libs are'nt the only ones with a heart. In fact, most of the folks in my life who I think are assholes, usually end up being of the liberal persuasion. They dont like to be called liberals either..... why, I dont know, but it is what it is.

There are good christians, and there are bad ones as well, and that goes for liberals too.

Sky Dancer is intellectually dishonest..... true story.

Exactly! You can't be charitable with other people's money. You can't force people to be charitable. All charity must come from the heart. It must an offering of self. The use of government force to facilitate charity, makes it non-existant.

5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.

6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.

8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.

9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.

10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.

11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
(Moroni 7:5-14)

And:

Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. (D&C 64:34)

In order to do good, in order to please God, our works have to be done with a willing heart and a willing mind. They have to be voluntary. God wants us to serve Him of our own free will. That's why He gave us free will.

Any attempt to force people to do good fails because one cannot force people to be good. In fact, the very use of force makes it more inclined to be evil. There are times the use of force is justified. But being justified and using it to exercise unrighteous dominion over others is two totally different things.

 

[MeBelle]

For those of you who chose to make this thread an actual discussion!

lettucespraynow

 

[The Infidel]

What I sitll find of interest, is that the OP request to meet "Liberal Christians" but when asked, will not define what they mean by Liberal and when those who state they are both idenify themselves, doesn't give any indication as to why they wanted to meet them or what they would like to know.

Thats because Sky didnt really want to talk to a christian at all..... he/she/it just wanted to hurl insults at them and tell them they ar'nte christian or christian enough for her/him/it.

This is the impression I get as well.

I dont see anywhere in the Bilble where Jesus was anything resembling a liberal.... nor was a he a conservative.

I suppose it depends on your definition.

He was non-political if ya ask me..... he thought politicians were a den of thieves, and he was right!

I agree. I would add that He was VERY clear that He felt religion and politics should never be mixed - which was one of the major problems of his day.

I see his teachings instructing me to do everything I can to be self reliant and think for myself.

Agreed. But He was also very clear that any time a Christian sees ANY poor person, even those they would consider to be scum, they should help that person. To reject them would be to reject Christ.

I am VERY charitable with my money, time, and abilities... I raise my children to respect their elders, and to be the best little women possible.

Both honorable and admirable.

If I see someone in need... I help them. Now that dont mean I hand money to every bum I see on the street either.
I wonder how many homeess people Sky has taken to dinner I know I have done it several times.... I load them up in my truck, and we go eat, and I fellowship wth them. Its always a good time. You'd be surprised at how many of those follks dont want to have a home... too much trouble.
I do however listen to my gut... which I think is the the spirit of God giving me intuition

Point being.... libs are'nt the only ones with a heart. In fact, most of the folks in my life who I think are assholes, usually end up being of the liberal persuasion. They dont like to be called liberals either..... why, I dont know, but it is what it is.

I find that often times, Conservatives label anyone not agreeing with them on EVERY issue, as being a Liberal. Certainly happened to me a lot. Think about that. I think Obama, Reid, and Pelosi suck. I hate Obamacare. I'm pretty anti-union. I own a glock as is my right. I would do away with a couple dozen fed agencies and give control to the states. I'm a Christian and think Christianity is often treated unfairly. I'm a business owner / "job creator" (100% American, thank you). I'm a family man. I was against Obama's bailouts as much as Bush's (mainly because of the poor structuring). I could go on but you get the idea. What does that make me to the whackjobs? A Liberal. Why? I give Obama credit for the order to kill OBL in an allied country. I think Bush was the origin of our economic problems (Obama just made them worse) etc... Just a thought for you to consider.

There are good christians, and there are bad ones as well, and that goes for liberals too.

Sky Dancer is intellectually dishonest..... true story.

I don't know sky dancer well enough to make such a judgement but that seems to be the case with at least this post.

Very well said.... I wouldnt even think of calling you a liberal, progressive or nothing of the such. You sound like a free thinking American with their head on straight .

Cheers my friend

 

[editec]

Yeah, you're right.

We don't agree.

We can agree to disagree, we don't have to disagreeable. I completely disagree with the whole Adam and Eve, original sin myth.

You know I used to feel that way, too. It didn't make any sense. But as I have grown older (and hopefully somewhat wiser) that theory of original sin is beginning to make more sense.

What is the meaning behind it? Well think about the myth. Mankind is living in a POTENTIAL paradise (this world).

Yet mankind cannot live in peacefully in paradise but instead clutches rancorous defeat out of the jaws of peaceful victory.

Why? Because mankind's nature is NOT without sin. What are greed, averice, envy, sloath, anger, revenge etc?

These things are part of mankinds nature. These are characteristic behaviors that we are ALL born with and must learn to overcome.

Hence, the concept of ORIGINAL sin is the concept that man, the naked ape, makes living in what is a potential paradise absolutely impossible.

Do we really think a man and a woman conversed with a talking serpent?

Did you or did you not, change significantly when you became a woman? I know that editec the prepubescent boy and editec the post pubescent man are extremely different people.

Adam and Eve is the lynchpin of Christianity. Pull it out and the whole religion collapses. If there was no original sin, we would have no need of a "savior".

Don't make the same goofy mistake the Fundmentalist's make. The Bible isn't something one ought to take LITERALLY.

No wonder the fundies are fighting the scientists about evolution. Of course, now that we have mapped the human genome, we know exactly where we came from.

You know, like most folks who eschew Christianty, you fight that battle against the very Christians who seem to understand their religion the worst.

I am some kind of christian, and I have absolutely no problem with science.

FWIW, the vast majority of christians are not slackjawed morons, either, even though slackjawed moronic christian morons make most of the news.


Perhaps as a child you were under the thumb of moronic Christians. Lots of that going on.

But think about how that has effected your thinking and perhaps how it has made you prejudiced.

Had you been under the thumb of moronic (possible sadistic) vegetarians, would you then assume that every vegetarian was ALSO moronic and sadistic?

See my point, here?

 

[earlycuyler]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

 

[BDBoop]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

Wrong.

That's not politics, it's humanity.

 

[Si modo]

There's soemthing like one billion people who don the title "Christian".

Their range of beliefs and attitudes is all over the map, even within the mainstream churches, like the RC chuirch, Baptists ect.

Given that?

Trying to impose ONE DOGMA and calling that Christian is kinda silly

In the thirties, you couldn't be Christian and Republican because the GOP was the "party of the rich and privelged" and not seen to be following Christ's help with the poor.

Now, evangelicals claim you cannot be Christian and liberal.

I say, nonsense.

Hmmm. My grandmother was a Catholic her entire life and a Republican since the moment she got the vote. She was born in 1898.

Bullshit generalities (redundant, I know) usually go nowhere really fast.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

 

[Si modo]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

You've were given a link to Catholic Charities.

But, you ignored it.

Quelle surprise.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yeah, you're right.

We don't agree.

We can agree to disagree, we don't have to disagreeable. I completely disagree with the whole Adam and Eve, original sin myth.

You know I used to feel that way, too. It didn't make any sense. But as I have grown older (and hopefully somewhat wiser) that theory of original sin is beginning to make more sense.

What is the meaning behind it? Well think about the myth. Mankind is living in a POTENTIAL paradise (this world).

Yet mankind cannot live in peacefully in paradise but instead clutches rancorous defeat out of the jaws of peaceful victory.

Why? Because mankind's nature is NOT without sin. What are greed, averice, envy, sloath, anger, revenge etc?

These things are part of mankinds nature. These are characteristic behaviors that we are ALL born with and must learn to overcome.

Hence, the concept of ORIGINAL sin is the concept that man, the naked ape, makes living in what is a potential paradise absolutely impossible.





Did you or did you not, change significantly when you became a woman? I know that editec the prepubescent boy and editec the post pubescent man are extremely different people.

Adam and Eve is the lynchpin of Christianity. Pull it out and the whole religion collapses. If there was no original sin, we would have no need of a "savior".

Don't make the same goofy mistake the Fundmentalist's make. The Bible isn't something one ought to take LITERALLY.

No wonder the fundies are fighting the scientists about evolution. Of course, now that we have mapped the human genome, we know exactly where we came from.

You know, like most folks who eschew Christianty, you fight that battle against the very Christians who seem to understand their religion the worst.

I am some kind of christian, and I have absolutely no problem with science.

FWIW, the vast majority of christians are not slackjawed morons, either, even though slackjawed moronic christian morons make most of the news.


Perhaps as a child you were under the thumb of moronic Christians. Lots of that going on.

But think about how that has effected your thinking and perhaps how it has made you prejudiced.

Had you been under the thumb of moronic (possible sadistic) vegetarians, would you then assume that every vegetarian was ALSO moronic and sadistic?

See my point, here?

I see your point, but I disagree with it. Rather than think we all have original sin and are fundamentally flawed, I think we are all expressions of the divine. We are originally pure.

I have other ideas about why human beings are vulnerable to anger, grasping, ignorance, jealousy and pride.

Thanks for your post.

I'm interested in whether you consider yourself politically liberal and Christian and which teachings of Jesus support your politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, that's not how I see it at all. I don't think Jesus was crazy. I doubt the Gospel version, that's all.

It was written long after he supposedly lived.

It was written by people who lived with him for 3 years.[?QUOTE]

This is inaccurate. The Gospels (at least those that were voted in) weren't written until sometime between 40 and 50 years after the crucifiction. Although the names Matthew and John were those of disciples, it is common knowledge that the authors of those Gospels were not the disciples of the same name.

Strawman attacks are so passe. Are you ever going to graduate to actually challenging a person on the merits of their position? Did I say all the Gospels were written by disciples? I said that the Gospel version of Jesus life was written by people who lived with him for 3 years. Mark was obviously written by someone who saw everything, including the events at Gethsemane. There is a personal detail in it that is unique to Mark, which helps give it credibility to scholars. It was also written before your time frame.

What common knowledge says that John was not written by the actual disciple named John? I would love to see that one argued by anyone with a shred of credibility to his name.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

I can show you liberals who do not support all of those, does that make them right wing nutcases?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

Wrong.

That's not politics, it's humanity.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Sky Dancer]

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

I can show you liberals who do not support all of those, does that make them right wing nutcases?

Show me what you mean by the term, "liberal". I'm not sure I understand what you think "liberal" means.

 

[IndependntLogic]

It was written by people who lived with him for 3 years.[?QUOTE]

This is inaccurate. The Gospels (at least those that were voted in) weren't written until sometime between 40 and 50 years after the crucifiction. Although the names Matthew and John were those of disciples, it is common knowledge that the authors of those Gospels were not the disciples of the same name.

Strawman attacks are so passe. Are you ever going to graduate to actually challenging a person on the merits of their position? Did I say all the Gospels were written by disciples? I said that the Gospel version of Jesus life was written by people who lived with him for 3 years. Mark was obviously written by someone who saw everything, including the events at Gethsemane. There is a personal detail in it that is unique to Mark, which helps give it credibility to scholars. It was also written before your time frame.

What common knowledge says that John was not written by the actual disciple named John? I would love to see that one argued by anyone with a shred of credibility to his name.

Hmm. The usual hostility. Oh well, that's you. If you go to Wikipedia, Bible Study or other sites, you can get some pretty basic knowledge on this. Most theologians agree that Mark wasn't written until around 70 years after the Crucifiction - certainly beyond the life expectancy of the time. I used 40 years because that is considered the minimum. Additionally, authors often signed the names of other people who were credited with originating something that had been passed verbally via the traditional Hebrew Tradition.
But you don't want to know this. It's not like you have an open mind or ever acknowledge the point of anyone else. As stated before, you have that compulsion thing about winning arguments with anonymous strangers on the net.
So here you go:
Oh my! You're right! Mark was written by someone who was right there when Jesus walked! Wow! You're just, just so SO brilliant!

All better now?

 

[earlycuyler]

I'd like to meet you. I know you exist.

By Liberal, do you mean ones that support gay marriage and all that ? If so you are asking the wrong question. If you are looking for Christians that support gay marriage then you are looking for those who practice a different religion or political philosophy. Christians are bound by doctrine, not politics.

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

Well this is not a good place to look. I would get the phone book and start there. Personally, I dont know of any church that does not support any of those things. Except for the death penalty, although some dont support it and openly oppose it, and the wars. Some oppose that to but the only one that gets any press for it is the one who hates gay folks. I am considered a liberal Christian for not liking the death penalty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm talking about affirmative action, civil rights, abolition of the death penalty, support for education, medicare and social security, anti-war, etc.

I can show you liberals who do not support all of those, does that make them right wing nutcases?

Show me what you mean by the term, "liberal". I'm not sure I understand what you think "liberal" means.

I defined it earlier in the thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Strawman attacks are so passe. Are you ever going to graduate to actually challenging a person on the merits of their position? Did I say all the Gospels were written by disciples? I said that the Gospel version of Jesus life was written by people who lived with him for 3 years. Mark was obviously written by someone who saw everything, including the events at Gethsemane. There is a personal detail in it that is unique to Mark, which helps give it credibility to scholars. It was also written before your time frame.

What common knowledge says that John was not written by the actual disciple named John? I would love to see that one argued by anyone with a shred of credibility to his name.

Hmm. The usual hostility. Oh well, that's you. If you go to Wikipedia, Bible Study or other sites, you can get some pretty basic knowledge on this. Most theologians agree that Mark wasn't written until around 70 years after the Crucifiction - certainly beyond the life expectancy of the time. I used 40 years because that is considered the minimum. Additionally, authors often signed the names of other people who were credited with originating something that had been passed verbally via the traditional Hebrew Tradition.
But you don't want to know this. It's not like you have an open mind or ever acknowledge the point of anyone else. As stated before, you have that compulsion thing about winning arguments with anonymous strangers on the net.

If you were not such a dweeb you would not think I was hostile.



Wikipedia dates Mark to no later than than early 70 CE.

New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this prominent skeptics site the entire New Testament was finished withing 60 years of Jesus.s crucifixion, and Mark was written within 30 years of it.

Chronological Order

Paul actually wrote the bulk of his epistles before Jerusalem was sacked by Rome. He wrote about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and preached in the very city it occurred in. He actually wrote down the entire Gospel story before any of the surviving Gospels were committed to parchment. I would think that someone would have pointed out it never happened if he was lying, but no one did.

Can you explain that?

You might be able to confuse someone who relies on idiots to make decisions, but I actually researched the issue, and love to use sites that actually disagree with me about the Bible being inspired and true to shoot down jerks like you who think they can scare me by appealing to authority.

By the way there was a strong oral tradition in existence. Even if nothing was committed to parchment for decades after the crucifixion, that does not prove the Gospel itself was not written by eyewitnesses.

So here you go:
Oh my! You're right! Mark was written by someone who was right there when Jesus walked! Wow! You're just, just so SO brilliant!

All better now?

Much better, thank you. I enjoy virtually stomping idiots who do not know enough to know when to shut the fuck up.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Strawman attacks are so passe. Are you ever going to graduate to actually challenging a person on the merits of their position? Did I say all the Gospels were written by disciples? I said that the Gospel version of Jesus life was written by people who lived with him for 3 years. Mark was obviously written by someone who saw everything, including the events at Gethsemane. There is a personal detail in it that is unique to Mark, which helps give it credibility to scholars. It was also written before your time frame.

What common knowledge says that John was not written by the actual disciple named John? I would love to see that one argued by anyone with a shred of credibility to his name.

Hmm. The usual hostility. Oh well, that's you. If you go to Wikipedia, Bible Study or other sites, you can get some pretty basic knowledge on this. Most theologians agree that Mark wasn't written until around 70 years after the Crucifiction - certainly beyond the life expectancy of the time. I used 40 years because that is considered the minimum. Additionally, authors often signed the names of other people who were credited with originating something that had been passed verbally via the traditional Hebrew Tradition.
But you don't want to know this. It's not like you have an open mind or ever acknowledge the point of anyone else. As stated before, you have that compulsion thing about winning arguments with anonymous strangers on the net.

If you were not such a dweeb you would not think I was hostile.



Wikipedia dates Mark to no later than than early 70 CE.

New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this prominent skeptics site the entire New Testament was finished withing 60 years of Jesus.s crucifixion, and Mark was written within 30 years of it.

Chronological Order

Paul actually wrote the bulk of his epistles before Jerusalem was sacked by Rome. He wrote about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and preached in the very city it occurred in. He actually wrote down the entire Gospel story before any of the surviving Gospels were committed to parchment. I would think that someone would have pointed out it never happened if he was lying, but no one did.

Can you explain that?

You might be able to confuse someone who relies on idiots to make decisions, but I actually researched the issue, and love to use sites that actually disagree with me about the Bible being inspired and true to shoot down jerks like you who think they can scare me by appealing to authority.

By the way there was a strong oral tradition in existence. Even if nothing was committed to parchment for decades after the crucifixion, that does not prove the Gospel itself was not written by eyewitnesses.

So here you go:
Oh my! You're right! Mark was written by someone who was right there when Jesus walked! Wow! You're just, just so SO brilliant!

All better now?

Much better, thank you. I enjoy virtually stomping idiots who do not know enough to know when to shut the fuck up.

Lol more of the usual hostility. What ARE you so angry about there little man? Oh well, not my concern.
So you go from asserting definitively that Mark was written by an eyewitnesses to "well it MAY have been written as uh soon, as 30 years after the crucifction... Then you bring up the uh Strong Oral tradition (which WHO brought up? ;-)
And then you claim you have stomped anyone? LOL!
Let's satisfy that insecurity that is so apparent in your posts. As before:
Of course you are absolutely right that you were wrong but uh now you're definitely uh right!