Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[ding]

Conspiracy is, as I've said before, your word. I didn't ever use it. It does show your lack of understanding of how the Bible came to be what is today.

That's exactly what you are arguing though. You just don't want to admit it because you know you can't prove it.

 

[ding]

So how did people profit from the functional advantage of alcohol?


You believe wrongly. I never said any of those things because I don't believe them. I do appreciate it when you tell me what I think.

You tell me how alcohol is a functional advantage. I explained how belief in a higher power is a functional advantage.

This is like you trying to tell me you don't believe the historicity of Christ is a conspiracy theory. I didn't believe that anymore than I believe you aren't arguing against the principle of natural selection.

 

[ding]

I believe I made a list awhile back. One thing I didn't include was the birth narratives of Jesus. I believe people think they know the story but they don't really understand it.

And you believe that proves what exactly? That the 24,000 written manuscripts and the behaviors of early Christians and apostles is a lie?

 

[hadit]

So who decides what is the 'right' science. During the COVID pandemic we saw Science doing what science has always done, i.e. trial and error to get closer to a final truth out there somewhere. And Science got it wrong every bit as much or more than they got in right.

Who gets to dictate what is real science and what is politically or socially motivated science? Or should that be something left to the people to work out?

In essence, they are replacing blind faith in Church leaders with blind faith in scientists. When Church leaders were wrong, the ones that found them to be wrong simply said, "We now are right, and you must believe us". Likewise, scientists who are found wrong are simply replaced by other scientists in whom blind belief is still required.

 

[alang1216]

That's exactly what you are arguing though. You just don't want to admit it because you know you can't prove it.

I can't argue for a conspiracy since, as I keep having to repeat, there was none. If you want to discuss the inaccuracies and changes made to the NT, that is another story.

 

[alang1216]

You tell me how alcohol is a functional advantage. I explained how belief in a higher power is a functional advantage.

Gives people courage and makes them look better to the opposite sex.

This is like you trying to tell me you don't believe the historicity of Christ is a conspiracy theory. I didn't believe that anymore than I believe you aren't arguing against the principle of natural selection.

You can believe whatever you choose to believe. Since your beliefs are not based on facts, they are hard to dispute.

 

[alang1216]

And you believe that proves what exactly? That the 24,000 written manuscripts and the behaviors of early Christians and apostles is a lie?

I doubt your number of manuscripts since most are later copies of the Greek originals (which we don't have).

Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. The writer of Acts applied creative intelligence and imagination, and fictional techniques for a more vivid and persuasive narratives about historical events.

 

[Foxfyre]

In essence, they are replacing blind faith in Church leaders with blind faith in scientists. When Church leaders were wrong, the ones that found them to be wrong simply said, "We now are right, and you must believe us". Likewise, scientists who are found wrong are simply replaced by other scientists in whom blind belief is still required.

Something like that for sure. And you are right that in both cases, those who have not done the science themselves and/or had religious experiences themselves are pretty much operating on faith that the scientist and/or the theologian have it right.

And when they try to use such faith to control the minds, behavior, lives of others, and/or allow no question or challenge to such beliefs, both are wrong.

 

[ding]

I can't argue for a conspiracy since, as I keep having to repeat, there was none. If you want to discuss the inaccuracies and changes made to the NT, that is another story.

Not sure how you can make that argument in light of the 24,000 written manuscripts in existence and the actions of early Christians and the apostles.

 

[ding]

Gives people courage and makes them look better to the opposite sex.


You can believe whatever you choose to believe. Since your beliefs are not based on facts, they are hard to dispute.

Says the guy who can't explain how 24,000 written manuscripts are based upon lies without arguing a conspiracy was involved.

 

[ding]

I doubt your number of manuscripts since most are later copies of the Greek originals (which we don't have).

Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. The writer of Acts applied creative intelligence and imagination, and fictional techniques for a more vivid and persuasive narratives about historical events.

Maybe google biblical manuscripts for the number of manuscripts in existence.

So was Paul the head of the conspiracy?

 

[alang1216]

Not sure how you can make that argument in light of the 24,000 written manuscripts in existence and the actions of early Christians and the apostles.

Of those 24,000 how many agree 100% with all the others?

 

[alang1216]

Says the guy who can't explain how 24,000 written manuscripts are based upon lies without arguing a conspiracy was involved.

There are two hypothetical writers writing about the same event, and one uses source A while the other uses source B. Later the books are added together to get a third book but source A differs from B, where is the conspiracy and who are the conspirators?

 

[alang1216]

Maybe google biblical manuscripts for the number of manuscripts in existence.

There are about 5,800 Greek manuscripts, all being copies of copies of copies of the originals. All other manuscripts are copies of these so anything non-historically accurate in the Greek will remain inaccurate, no matter how many copies there are.

So was Paul the head of the conspiracy?

You tell me, why do Paul and Acts disagree.

 

[Donald H]

I am sure you will only accept your own conclusion--so go for it.

It was a question. You seem to be a perpetually angry person. Is that only when your religion is questioned?

You're in the wrong place if you expect total agreement.

 

[Donald H]

I don't see it as a quagmire. It is easily explained. There is no reason and no need for change. I truly am sorry these accounts are so difficult for you to understand.

Children become adults and they stop believing in Santa, the Easter bunny, and fairy tales. You interpret the bible stories as being somewhat similar, and we can agree on that, except that a large number of Christians don't stop believing in the bible stories when they become adults.

We're trying to determine why that is true. As I suggested, 200 years ago the impossible tales in the bibles was universally believed by Christians because hardly anybody tried to say that they weren't possible. And then along came Darwin!

I had Catholic English teachers who could explain fables, folklore, legends, etc. and how they are used to present basic truths in the Bible and in stories like Aesop's Fables.

Yes, I understand and appreciate that some stories can teach a lesson to adults too. But that would then be saying that 99% of Christians must have been completely lost in the dark 200 years ago, as they spent a lifetime trying to make the 'big fish' story and others work! And fwiw, there are still leftovers on this forum who are still trying.

Perhaps call for all children to be taught basic literature fundamentals.

You're not serious on advocating a fascist solution. Stay with a civil and polite discussion. I know you are a good person who genuinely believes in his god. You're still just here for answers, as I think we all are.

How do you feel about Darwin? Isn't it true that many Christians feel a great amount of resentment and anger toward Darwin?

 

[Donald H]

Of those 24,000 how many agree 100% with all the others?

Christianity wasn't lying in those documents. They were mostly written in a time when stories such as Jonah and the big fish story were honestly believed to be possible.

Now it's conceded by Meriweather that they were never intended to be literally true stories. Apparently Ding too agrees that the stories in the manuscripts aren't true, but were written with a different purpose.

 

[ding]

There are about 5,800 Greek manuscripts, all being copies of copies of copies of the originals. All other manuscripts are copies of these so anything non-historically accurate in the Greek will remain inaccurate, no matter how many copies there are.


You tell me, why do Paul and Acts disagree.

Yes, lots of copies. I never said otherwise. Although I'm not certain the other 19,000 manuscripts are all copies.

I can only assume your perception that there's a disagreement is proof of a conspiracy, right? But why stop there, why not talk about the perceived disagreements in the gospels too?

 

[ding]

Of those 24,000 how many agree 100% with all the others?

The question you should be asking is how does their accuracy compare to other events in antiquity that you don't believe were conspiracies to control the minds of men by anonymous individuals.

 

[ding]

There are two hypothetical writers writing about the same event, and one uses source A while the other uses source B. Later the books are added together to get a third book but source A differs from B, where is the conspiracy and who are the conspirators?

That's the question I'm asking you. Who was responsible for the fraud of epic proportions that you believe exists.

But how many of these accounts say Jesus didn't perform miracles?